Achieving Dramatic School Improvement: 

An Exploratory Study

A Cross-site Analysis From the Evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform Program 

Implementation and Outcomes Study

Daniel K. Aladjem, American Institutes for Research

Beatrice F. Birman, American Institutes for Research

Martin Orland, WestEd

Jenifer Harr-Robins, American Institutes for Research

Alberto Heredia, WestEd

Thomas B. Parrish, American Institutes for Research

Stephen J. Ruffini, WestEd

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

2010 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED01CO0129. Menahem 

Herman served as the contracting officer’s representative. The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the 

views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does the mention of commercial products or 

organizations imply endorsements by the U.S. government. The inclusion of such information is for the reader’s 

convenience and is not intended to endorse any views expressed, or products, programs, models or services offered.

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Carmel Martin

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Alan Ginsburg

Director

January 2010

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Achieving Dramatic School Improvement: 

An Exploratory Study, Washington, D.C., 2010.

This report is available on the Department’s Web site at: 

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For 

more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.
iii

CONTENTS

Exhibits.......................................................................................................................................... v

Preface........................................................................................................................................... ix

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ xi

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Classifying Improving Schools............................................................................... 13

Vignette: Weston Elementary—Putting it All Together....................................................... 18

Chapter 3: Leadership................................................................................................................ 21

Vignette: Mill Elementary—A Visionary Leader Creating a Culture of High 

Expectations.................................................................................................................. 24

Vignette: Freedom Elementary—Daily Persistence in Selling the Message of 

High Expectations......................................................................................................... 25

Vignette: Mill Elementary—Every Teacher a Leader .......................................................... 28

Chapter 4: School Climate ......................................................................................................... 31

Vignette: Freedom Elementary—Behavior Modification Plus............................................. 33

Vignette: Weston Elementary—Drilling Clear and Consistent Expectations....................... 34

Vignette: Lincoln Elementary—Balancing Principal and Community Authority 

in a Tight-Knit Community .......................................................................................... 37

Vignette: Chelsea Elementary—Pushing for Greater Parent Voice...................................... 38

Chapter 5: Instructional Improvement Strategies................................................................... 41

Vignette: Weston Elementary—A Comprehensive Approach to Extending Time............... 43

Vignette: Freedom Elementary—Team Problem Solving to Support Struggling 

Students and Teachers .................................................................................................. 46

Vignette: Mill Elementary—Transparency and Student Engagement Through 

Prominently Displayed Data Boards............................................................................. 48
iv

Vignette: Swift Middle School—Using a Regional Consultant and Teacher 

Leaders to Roll Out Reforms........................................................................................ 51

Chapter 6: External Support..................................................................................................... 53

Vignette: Swift Middle School—Strategically Using District and State Funds ................... 54

Chapter 7: Sustaining Rapid and Dramatic School Improvement........................................ 57

Vignette: Mill Elementary—Instilling a “Sense of Urgency” Among New and

 Veteran Staff................................................................................................................ 59

Chapter 8: Lessons Learned from Studying Dramatic School Improvement....................... 61

Chapter 9: Conclusions and Next Steps.................................................................................... 67

References.................................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix A—Detailed Methodology ........................................................................................ 75

Pilot Study ............................................................................................................................. 75

Primary Study........................................................................................................................ 76

Appendix B—Data Collection Instruments.............................................................................. 81

Appendix C—Site Abstracts.................................................................................................... 111
v

EXHIBITS

Exhibit E.1 Integrated Framework for School Improvement.................................................. xiv

Exhibit E.2 School Selection Criteria ..................................................................................... xvi

Exhibit 1 Integrated Framework for School Improvement..................................................... 6

Exhibit 2 School Selection Criteria ........................................................................................ 8

Exhibit 3 Selected Characteristics of Visited Schools.......................................................... 11

Exhibit 4 Perceived Relationships Between School Characteristics and Student 

Achievement ......................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 5 Student Demographic Factors That Might Have Affected Changes 

in Achievement..................................................................................................... 63

Exhibit B.1 Informed Consent Form........................................................................................ 82

Exhibit B.2 Community Member Focus Group Protocol......................................................... 84

Exhibit B.3 Current Principal/Assistant Principal Interview Protocol..................................... 86

Exhibit B.4 Curriculum/Instructional Specialist Interview Protocol ....................................... 88

Exhibit B.5 District Curriculum Specialist Protocol................................................................ 90

Exhibit B.6 District Official Interview Protocol ...................................................................... 92

Exhibit B.7 Document Review Checklist................................................................................. 94

Exhibit B.8 ELA/Mathematics Department Chair Interview Protocol .................................... 95

Exhibit B.9 Experienced Principal Interview Protocol ............................................................ 97

Exhibit B.10 Experienced Teacher Focus Group Protocol ...................................................... 100

Exhibit B.11 Guidance Counselor Interview Protocol............................................................. 103

Exhibit B.12 New Teacher Focus Group Protocol................................................................... 105

Exhibit B.13 Parent Focus Group Protocol.............................................................................. 107

Exhibit B.14 School Improvement Plan (SIP)/Leadership Team Focus Group 

Protocol............................................................................................................... 109

Exhibit C.1 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Reading ............................................................................................................... 115

Exhibit C.2 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 116
vi

Exhibit C.3 Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Freedom 

Elementary School (K–5) ................................................................................... 117

Exhibit C.4 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Reading ............................................................................................................... 121

Exhibit C.5 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 122

Exhibit C.6 Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Lincoln 

Elementary School (K–8) ................................................................................... 123

Exhibit C.7 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

English Language Arts........................................................................................ 126

Exhibit C.8 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 127

Exhibit C.9 Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08) Mill Elementary 

School (PK–6)..................................................................................................... 128

Exhibit C.10 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

English Language Arts........................................................................................ 131

Exhibit C.11 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 132

Exhibit C.12 Chronology of Critical Events 2000 to 2007, Stratford Elementary 

(PK–6)................................................................................................................. 133

Exhibit C.13 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2001–07), 

English Language Arts........................................................................................ 136

Exhibit C.14 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2001–07), 

Reading ............................................................................................................... 137

Exhibit C.15 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2001–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 138

Exhibit C.16 Critical Events Chronology (1999–2000 to 2007–08), Swift Middle 

School (6–8)........................................................................................................ 139

Exhibit C.17 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), 

English Language Arts........................................................................................ 142
vii

Exhibit C.18 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 143

Exhibit C.19 Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Walker 

Academy (PK–12) .............................................................................................. 144

Exhibit C.20 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Reading ............................................................................................................... 147

Exhibit C.21 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 148

Exhibit C.22 Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Weston 

Elementary School (PK–5)................................................................................. 149

Exhibit C.23 School and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Reading ............................. 152

Exhibit C.24 School and State Student Achievement (2002–07), English 

Language Arts..................................................................................................... 153

Exhibit C.25 School and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 154

Exhibit C.26 Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Dogwood 

Middle School (6–8)........................................................................................... 155

Exhibit C.27 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), 

Reading ............................................................................................................... 159

Exhibit C.28 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 160

Exhibit C.29 Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Martin 

Elementary School (PK–5)................................................................................. 161

Exhibit C.30 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Reading ............................................................................................................... 164

Exhibit C.31 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 165

Exhibit C.32 Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Chelsea 

Elementary School (PK–8)................................................................................. 166
viii

Exhibit C.33 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), 

Reading ............................................................................................................... 169

Exhibit C.34 School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), 

Mathematics........................................................................................................ 170

Exhibit C.35 Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Cooke Elementary 

School (PK–5)..................................................................................................... 171
Preface ix

PREFACE

This report from the Evaluation of the Comprehensive School Reform Program Implementation 

and Outcomes (ECSRIO) presents findings about low-performing schools that dramatically 

improved their performance. It follows prior research from this study examining the 

implementation and outcomes of the federal Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program.

The CSR program was established as a demonstration program in 1998 and authorized as a full 

program in 2002 as part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA). It is one approach to help low-performing K–12 public schools meet state performance 

standards.

In 2006, the U.S. Department of Education contracted with WestEd and American Institutes for 

Research to add an additional substudy to ECSRIO, involving case studies of 11 CSR schools. 

The focus of this study is on schools that made significant improvements in student achievement 

in a relatively short (one- to two-year) time frame as well as at a slower, steadier pace over a 

longer period.

To avoid reader confusion, we want to emphasize that this study examines quick-and-dramatic as 

well as slow-and-steady school improvement retrospectively, seeking to understand the policies, 

programs, and practices that contributed to “turning around” these schools’ performance. This 

stands in contrast to current federal policy objectives that aim to prospectively identify the 

lowest-performing schools in each state as targets for concerted turnaround interventions. The 

findings of this study can inform the development of high quality school turnaround designs and 

programs in these sites. In addition, this report concludes with suggestions for an ongoing 

research agenda for contemporaneously studying low-performing schools that are targeted for 

school turnaround.

Acknowledgements xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank the many individuals who contributed to the completion of this report. We are 

particularly grateful to district staff, building principals, and staff of the schools we studied for 

their kind cooperation and assistance in participating in interviews and follow-up 

communications. In addition, parents and community members took time out of their busy 

schedules to participate in interviews and focus groups about each of our schools. Without their 

efforts, this report would not have been possible, and we deeply appreciate their assistance. We 

also wish to acknowledge the efforts of Marisela Sifuentes-Den Hartog of WestEd for contacting 

the schools and arranging the site visits.

Several individuals at the U.S. Department of Education provided report guidance and direction. 

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Alan Ginsburg, director, Policy and Program 

Studies Service (PPSS); David Goodwin, former director, Program and Analytic Studies 

Division, PPSS; Menahem Herman, Calvin Marshall, Diane Crow, Katie Decker, Jessica Peng, 

Alan Pryor, and Kara Tanenbaum. The information in this report was provided by independent 

research firms under contract to the U.S. Department of Education. The overall Evaluation of 

Comprehensive School Reform Implementation and Outcomes (ECSRIO) study was led by 

Martin Orland of WestEd, and the Dramatic School Improvement substudy was co-led by 

Beatrice Birman and Daniel Aladjem of American Institutes for Research and Martin Orland of 

WestEd. Naida Tushnet of WestEd was the original director of this study, and her efforts were 

invaluable.

Jennifer O’Day of American Institutes for Research reviewed multiple drafts of this report. Her 

probing, insightful, and challenging questions improved the report immeasurably

Other researchers who provided useful assistance for this report include Brooke Connolly, 

Rebeca Diaz, Norman Gold, April Haagenson, Khadijah Salaam, Amy Schustack, and Lauren 

Davis Sosenko of WestEd; and Andrea Boyle, Stephen Coleman, Kerstin Carlson Le Floch,

Lindsay Poland, and Tricia Tulipano of AIR. We would like to acknowledge thoughtful 

contributions of the members of our Technical Working Group, including Carolyn Temple 

Adger, Geoffrey Borman, H. J. Green, Bryan Hassel, Elsie Leak, Valerie Lee, Paul Ruiz, Jean 

Rutherford, Malik Stewart, Sam Stringfield, and Ken Wong. While we appreciate the assistance 

and support of all of the above individuals, any errors in judgment or fact are of course the 

responsibility of the authors.

Executive Summary xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Improving persistently low-performing schools is a core goal of the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 (NCLB), the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965. As a result, policymakers have sought ways to address the increasingly large numbers of 

schools identified as low-performing. Across the nation, 13,457 schools failed to make adequate 

yearly progress (AYP) in 2007–08. Of those, 1,583 were planning for restructuring, and 3,358 

were in the first year of implementing restructuring. These numbers are likely to rise because 

many states have established progressively ambitious targets for meeting the NCLB goal of 

student proficiency by 2013–14.1

School reform research suggests that multiple factors contribute to improvement: leadership and 

staffing, school climate, instructional improvement strategies, and external (district, state, 

federal) support. Furthermore, a large body of research accumulated over several decades 

indicates that the interplay of these components is complex and improvement is incremental, 

occurring over several years—what we call in this report slow-and-steady. For example, studies 

of comprehensive school reform suggest that implementation for at least three to five years is 

typically the time necessary to see student achievement improve (Aladjem et al., 2006; Borman 

et al., 2003; Desimone, 2000; Zhang et al., 2006).

The pressure to meet NCLB's 2014 deadline has motivated many policymakers to question this 

widely held consensus that it takes at least three to five years to improve failing schools enough 

to produce substantial gains in student achievement. Some policy analysts have asked what can 

be learned from the private sector about quick and dramatic organizational improvement. Recent 

literature draws lessons from failing businesses and corporations that have turned around. This 

literature suggests that schools can accelerate reform efforts and see the same sort of quick, 

dramatic improvement if they engage in a process—characterized by strong leadership, a clear 

focus on improving instruction, achievement of “quick wins,” and building of a committed 

staff—similar to that used by successful corporations.2 The business-model literature suggests 

that much more rapid-improvement is possible in less time than the usual three to five years.

To avoid reader confusion, we want to emphasize that this study examines quick-and-dramatic as 

well as slow-and-steady school improvement retrospectively, seeking to understand the policies, 

programs, and practices that contributed to “turning around” these schools’ performance. This 

stands in contrast to current federal policy objectives that aim to prospectively identify the 

lowest-performing schools in each state as targets for concerted turnaround interventions. The 

findings of this study strongly support this proactive approach and can inform the development 

of high quality school turnaround designs and programs in these sites. In addition, this report 

concludes with suggestions for an ongoing research agenda for contemporaneously studying 

low-performing schools that are targeted for school turnaround.

 1 http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/schooldata.pdf

2 Herman and colleagues (2008) point out that there is little rigorous evidence to support this conception, although 

there is a consensus on which factors seem related to turning around low-performing schools based on the current 

state of the research literature.
Executive Summary xiv

Exhibit E.1 displays the integrated framework that guides this report. As shown in the exhibit, 

school climate (or, more specifically, the school’s disciplinary policies and activities, focus on 

learning and achievement, and extent of parent and community involvement) is an integral part 

of the school, represented by the octagon. The school improvement strategies box reflects many 

of the components emphasized in the literature on school change, including instructional 

practices and curriculum, extended learning time, data use, and support for staff. 

The remaining parts of the exhibit unite school reform research and the business perspective on 

school improvement. The arrow striking through the school octagon represents the business 

perspective that focuses on the driving role that leadership—both principal leadership and 

distributed leadership—plays in achieving school improvement. The arrow pointing to the 

bottom of the octagon represents external factors that are important potential catalysts for school 

improvement including federal and state accountability requirements, state and district technical 

support such as professional development, and supplemental outside funding.

Exhibit E.1

Integrated Framework for School Improvement

Prior research on factors that contribute to school improvement and recent literature on models 

of rapid school improvement led us to the following research questions for this exploratory 

study:

To what extent do rapid-improvement CSR schools exist (i.e., schools that have made quick 

and dramatic improvement in student achievement)? Could we locate them among a 
Executive Summary xv

national pool of Comprehensive School Reform—funded schools engaged in improvement 

efforts?

Did the processes of reform across rapid-improvement schools and initially low-performing 

schools that steadily improved at a slower pace (i.e., slow-and-steady) reflect the 

characteristics and strategies found in prior research on school improvement?

Did rapid-improvement schools differ in observable, systematic ways from slow-and-steady 

schools?

How did rapid-improvement schools and slow-and-steady schools address challenges to 

implementing and sustaining improvement strategies?

This set of case studies, conducted jointly by WestEd and the American Institutes for Research, 

is part of a larger study, the Evaluation of the Comprehensive School Reform Program 

Implementation and Outcomes. In 2001, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) contracted with 

WestEd to conduct a longitudinal study of the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program. 

The case studies had two purposes: to conduct in-depth, retrospective case studies to examine 

schools nationwide that received CSR grants and that demonstrated significant improvement in 

student achievement; and to understand the processes and practices in which they engaged to 

accomplish this improvement. 

Methodology 

This exploratory study describes approaches to improving schools through retrospective, indepth qualitative case studies. To select schools to be examined, we sought to identify CSR 

schools demonstrating two distinctive patterns of improved student achievement between 2000 

and 2005, rapid-improvement (i.e., schools that made quick and dramatic improvements in 

student achievement over a one or two year time period) as well as slow-and-steady (i.e., schools 

that made noteworthy student achievement improvements but over a four or five year 

timeframe). Exhibit E.2 outlines the steps used for identifying candidate sites. This process led 

us to study 11 schools.
Executive Summary xvi

Exhibit E.2

School Selection Criteria

After initial selection, to inform the study’s qualitative process and to verify whether schools 

were originally categorized correctly, we examined these 11 schools’ achievement patterns using 

more recent data through 2007 for all tested grades obtained from individual state education 

agency Web sites. We also examined patterns in district and state achievement relative to those 

at the selected schools. Furthermore, we conducted analyses to examine factors other than school 

practices and strategies that might have been related to achievement patterns. In the course of 

undertaking these more thorough examinations of school achievement patterns using more recent 

data, we found that the initial school categorizations were not always maintained. Of the 11 

schools identified, eight were ultimately classified as rapid-improvement schools and three were 

• Comprehensive School Reform (CSR)—We limited the sample to schools that had received a 

federal CSR grant because (1) this study was part of a larger study of the CSR program, and 

(2) these schools were likely to be initially low-performing as well as actively engaged in 

improvement strategies.

• Achievement trends—Using 1999–2000 to 2004–05 achievement data from the National 

Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Score Database, we identified sites that were 

initially low-performing and made quick or slow-and-steady gains:

o Initial low performance: All schools must have been in the bottom 50 percent based 

on their 1999–2000 scores. 

o Rapid-improvement (RI): RI schools met two criteria: (1) They made annual gains in 

standardized achievement scores in reading and mathematics from 1999–2000 to 

2004–05. The RI schools were in the top 50 percent of gainers in each year. (2) We 

eliminated schools that showed declines in any given year between 1999–2000 and 

2004–05 that exceeded an established threshold. 

o Slow-and-steady (SS): We calculated the overall gains between 2000 and 2005 in 

both reading and math. The SS pool included schools with consistent annual gains in 

each subject.

• Additional factors—To account for cases in which changes in scores might be attributed to 

shifting student demographics, we excluded schools that showed a change in the number of 

free and reduced-price-lunch program participants and minority students greater than 15 

percent in a given year.

• Comparison schools—These were CSR schools, from the same database, that showed little 

or no gains in student achievement from 1999–2000 to 2004–05. To control for the influence 

of the district, we limited the comparison sites to those in the same district as other selected 

schools.
Executive Summary xvii

classified as slow-and-steady. All 11 had achieved some success in improving student outcomes. 

There were no comparison schools.3

Following site visits to the selected schools, each team prepared a detailed site case report 

organized around CSR program components and additional factors from the business-model 

literature. After completing all visits in spring 2008, the full study team met for two days to 

discuss each site and emerging themes across schools. Additional activities identified remaining 

questions that required follow-up activities by site visitors.

Key Questions and Findings

To what extent do rapid-improvement CSR schools exist (i.e., schools that have made quick 

and dramatic improvement in student achievement)? Could we locate them among a 

national pool of CSR schools engaged in improvement efforts?

Few schools nationwide met our criteria as rapid-improvement schools. From our database of 

1,037 CSR elementary schools that were initially low-performing in both reading and math 

achievement, we were able to identify only 47 that showed dramatic and sustained achievement 

gains in subsequent years. Finding dramatically improved middle schools proved even more 

difficult. This suggests that few schools across the nation are likely to be making quick gains that 

are sustained over an appreciable period of time.

Did the processes of reform across rapid-improvement schools and initially low-performing 

schools that steadily improved at a slower pace (i.e., slow-and-steady) reflect the 

characteristics and strategies found in prior research on school improvement?

Yes, the rapid-improvement and slow-and-steady schools that were studied consistently 

addressed factors long identified in school reform research as contributors to improved student 

outcomes. The schools reported adopting and implementing new leadership styles, practices to 

improve school climate, new instructional strategies and practices, and strategies to secure 

external support. However, specific practices varied across schools.

Leadership. Both principal and distributed leadership were important in stimulating, 

implementing, and in some cases, sustaining reforms to improve student achievement. 

For example, about half of the schools reported adopting distributed leadership practices 

(in which school staff shared leadership responsibilities with the principal). In one school 

this meant that the school organized committees of teachers from across grade levels, 

which enhanced both horizontal (within grade) and vertical (across grades) collaboration, 

according to staff members. Another school tapped senior teachers to roll out new 

strategies, increasing perceived ownership across the school; staff in this school believed 

 3 We originally identified two of these schools as potential comparison sites (i.e., a CSR-funded school in the same 

district and grade span as an identified sample school, but which had not demonstrated significant achievement 

gains) for study. However, in the course of undertaking the more thorough examination of school achievement 

patterns in these schools using more recent data, we found that they were actually making substantial achievement 

gains. They were thus retained as improvement rather than comparison sites. 
Executive Summary xviii

that they were creating their own reforms, even though they were receiving considerable 

external help. Although schools employed different strategies, staff across the schools 

saw common, multiple benefits of distributed leadership, including shared responsibility, 

greater staff buy-in, more effective implementation of new practices, continuity of 

leadership, and enhanced collaboration. Reform accelerated with new principals, 

regardless of the managerial style of the principal. 

School Climate. School climate was another area of common attention but varied 

practice. Many of the schools addressed school climate challenges at the beginning of 

the improvement period though they did so in different ways. Examples included 

establishing clear, consistent schoolwide behavior rules or expectations, and conveying 

those expectations to staff, students, and families; establishing unambiguous 

consequences for student misbehavior, which enabled teachers to consistently practice 

and enforce school expectations; and instituting incentive programs that reward good 

behavior and academic achievement accomplishments. Other common approaches to 

improving school climate included involving parents meaningfully in school governance, 

and soliciting resources from the community. 

Instructional Strategies. Across the board, both the rapid-improvement and slow-andsteady schools visited engaged in strategies, albeit different ones, to enhance instruction, 

such as aligning the curriculum to district or state standards and assessments, adopting a 

new curriculum, or increasing learning time through an extended school year, afterschool programs, or block scheduling within the school day. Almost all schools reported 

sharing and systematically using data on student achievement for “continuous 

improvement.” Schools used data on student performance—often through regular 

benchmarking—to foster improvement in several ways. The first was to modify 

instruction, such as by providing greater focus to areas of weaker student performance. A 

second way was to identify and target individual or groups of students for remediation or 

interventions. A third was to monitor individual teachers and help them improve their 

instructional strategies. Professional development from the district, consultants, or local 

universities often strengthened teachers’ comfort levels with ongoing use of data 

especially in the rapid-improvement schools. 

External Support. External support, especially fiscal resources from multiple sources—

state, federal, and local—helped schools undertake many improvement efforts. Support 

also came in the form of accountability, external pressure, and establishing consistent 

expectations.

While the schools visited implemented distinctive practices in the areas of leadership, school 

climate, instruction, and external support to address common challenges, they also combined 

these practices in a variety of different ways. Some schools placed greater emphasis on one 

factor (e.g., distributed leadership) than another (e.g., transparent use of student-level data). 

Others chose a different order of strategies over time or identified unique ways to establish a 

coherent whole-school approach. Reform strategies interacted in multiple ways, suggesting that 

the same reforms may be more or less successful depending on differences in leadership, staff 

capacity, community support, and other factors. Schools engaged in varying combinations of 
Executive Summary xix

reforms that they often adapted and changed to meet their evolving circumstances. The energy, 

experience, and stability of leadership and teachers also influenced the interplay of reforms, and 

this interplay appeared to require ongoing monitoring and fine-tuning. 

School improvement did not occur in a vacuum. While much of the recent literature on turning 

around the achievement of low-performing schools focuses on changes at the school level, we 

found few examples of schools that improved in isolation. Respondents in our study rarely 

mentioned districts as inhibiting reform efforts (as is implied in some of the literature on 

turnaround schools), and they often identified districts as being key initiators and supporters of 

school reform. 

State and federal accountability also appeared to push schools to change. Respondents noted 

both the pressure of chronic low performance and for greater alignment of state, district, and 

school efforts. Furthermore, additional resources supported many of the reform efforts we 

observed in both the rapid-improvement and slow-and-steady schools visited. While the primary 

form of support was financial, respondents across many of the study’s schools also provided 

examples of in-kind assistance, predominantly from the districts. In-kind assistance was 

generally in the form of consultation and professional development for instructional coaches and 

teachers. In some cases, schools and districts used funding to purchase assistance directly from 

state and private agencies. Other forms of district support appeared subtler, such as assigning 

experienced principals with the explicit purpose of turning around the school or guiding reform 

efforts by establishing consistent expectations.

Did rapid-improvement schools differ in observable, systematic ways from slow-and-steady 

schools?

Rapid-improvement schools and slow-and-steady schools had much in common, but there were 

differences as well. For example, in most of the rapid-improvement schools with sustained 

achievement gains, improvements in student achievement were credited to new principals who 

were viewed as change leaders and who continued to lead the school through the study period. In 

contrast, two of the three schools with slow-and-steady increases in student achievement had 

multiple principals during the study’s five-year time period. Perhaps in part because of this, 

respondents in these schools were more likely to attribute their success to distributed leadership 

(in which teachers and other school staff shared leadership with the principals) than were 

respondents in rapid-improvement schools. And while both categories of schools may have 

attributed their success to use of data, the rapid-improvement schools appeared more likely to 

use data in more transparent and public ways. One rapid-improvement school, for example, 

prominently displayed data boards throughout the school and, instead of using them for punitive 

monitoring, established a shared responsibility for results, with one teacher noting, “We all sink, 

or we all swim.” At another school, the notion of data display and transparency was extended to 

students, who regularly tracked their own progress against an “aim line” that served as a means 

of comparing their current achievement with established goals. 

Staff members in the rapid-improvement schools (irrespective of whether those gains were 

sustained in the longer term) also were more likely than those in the slow-and-steady schools to 

attribute their success to increased learning time, either from an extended school year, after-
Executive Summary xx

school programs, or block scheduling within the school day. One rapid-improvement school used 

extended learning time to provide remedial instruction to struggling students, while in another, 

teachers used the results from weekly benchmark assessments in core content areas to identify 

students for an after-school and a Saturday academy. Two schools that operated on a year-round 

schedule took advantage of “intersession” breaks to target students for remedial instruction.

How did rapid-improvement schools and slow-and-steady schools address challenges to 

implementing and sustaining improvement strategies?

Sustaining school improvement appeared to be as challenging as achieving it in the first place.

As we describe in this report, two of the rapid-improvement schools originally identified as 

having made quick academic gains according to our selection criteria showed considerable 

declines in more recent years. Even schools that sustained their growth reported continued 

challenges, including high levels of student mobility, maintaining a sense of urgency among both 

veteran and new staff, and continuing to develop new teacher leaders as experienced staff 

advanced to administrative positions elsewhere. 

In several cases, both rapid-improvement and slow-and-steady schools had to cope with 

diminished resources, even as they showed improvement—in some cases because of their 

improvement. Most schools developed strategies to alleviate resource fluctuations, such as 

seeking supplemental fiscal resources to replace lost funds and building expertise among staff to 

reduce reliance upon external support. Schools generally had an influx of resources over several 

years at a time. As grant funding streams ended, eight of the schools studied were able to rely on 

new funding streams. 

Several schools used their funds and other resources to focus on other strategies to sustain 

improved outcomes. For example, some schools worked to enhance the knowledge and skills of 

their staff through professional development or purchasing or developing materials and 

instructional programs that would remain in place once funding ended. To combat the problems 

associated with staff turnover, a few schools strengthened the orientation of new staff. Despite 

these efforts and actions, sustaining improvement efforts and the achievement of students 

continued to be a common concern across schools. These case studies point to an often chaotic 

and sometimes irrational environment that can thwart the sustainability of hard-won gains in 

student achievement. 

Cautions

The findings of this study must be interpreted with caution. First, we studied only 11 schools. 

Furthermore, the sample of schools did not include any comparison sites (despite attempts to 

include such schools in the study), making it impossible to determine whether the factors we 

observed as being associated with rapid and dramatic school improvement were not also present 

in schools that did not experience appreciable achievement gains. Nor did the study include any 

examples in which fundamental school structural arrangements were altered such as might occur 

through state takeover or reconstitution or charter school conversion. Shifts in the composition 

of student populations in many study schools also made it difficult to distinguish whether 
Executive Summary xxi

achievement changes were attributable to school-specific efforts or to the demographic changes. 

In addition, each of the study schools engaged in unique, complex, and multifaceted 

improvement efforts, making it both difficult and ill-advised to relate changes in achievement to 

any single critical factor. For these reasons, we cannot discern the degree to which specific, 

individual school factors are systematically related to the academic improvement patterns 

observed at these schools. We also cannot generalize the conditions and factors we report for 

these particular sites to other schools—similar actions at other schools will not necessarily lead 

to similar results. All of the schools we visited, however, achieved some degree of success in 

improving student achievement, and the factors we report appeared to have contributed to that 

success. 

Conclusions and Next Steps

NCLB has raised the stakes for persistently low-performing schools. As states have placed more 

schools in Needs Improvement or Restructuring status, educators have been searching for ways 

to improve the performance of their students, and policymakers have been searching for specific 

practices they could recommend to help these schools turn around quickly.4 For years, research 

on school reform has offered many different ingredients—in the areas of leadership, climate, 

instructional practices, and support—that appear to help schools increase student achievement. 

These factors appear to have contributed to success in this study as well. Although there were 

some differences between rapid-improvement schools and slow-and-steady schools, we found 

that schools in both categories consistently relied on these ingredients to achieve improved 

student outcomes. 

Beyond identifying similar ingredients for improving student outcomes, this study also joins 

others in concluding that there is no single recipe for success. Schools may achieve different 

patterns of outcomes because they implemented or combined these ingredients in different ways. 

Indeed, prior research indicates that different combinations of specific practices can achieve 

results if they are implemented well (Aladjem et al., 2006). However the complexity of the 

environments in which educators work can challenge even well-implemented reforms. Prior 

history as well as existing routines, beliefs, and cultures of the school will influence how such 

interventions are interpreted, implemented, and interact to produce the results specific to that 

context. Therefore, similar strategies can yield different outcomes depending on factors both 

within and outside the control of schools, districts, and states. 

This report provides examples of how some schools appear to be achieving noteworthy gains in 

student outcomes; while achieving these gains appears to be relatively rare, there also appears to 

be multiple ways to do so. This study points to the dynamic settings in which many lowperforming schools operate and the need for ongoing investigation of how schools can achieve 

impressive results and sustain them in constantly changing environments. Researchers, 

policymakers, and practitioners in recent years have paid much attention to the scientific search 

 4 Schools categorized by the federal government as “Needs Improvement” include those in Year 1 Improvement, 

Year 2 Improvement, and Corrective Action status. Schools categorized as “Restructuring” include those in 

Restructuring or Planning and Restructuring or Implementation status.
Executive Summary xxii

for “what works” to improve schools and turn them around. This study’s findings draw attention 

to the fact that turning schools around is not just about adopting a set of effective or promising 

practices. It is about recognizing that “one best system” does not exist—that no single approach 

can guarantee improvement in a particular school. It is also about implementing practices well, 

while at the same time navigating and adapting to a constantly changing landscape.
Chapter 1 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Improving persistently low-performing schools is a core goal of the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 (NCLB), the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 (ESEA). Policymakers have sought ways to address the increasingly large numbers of 

schools identified as low-performing. Across the nation, 13,457 schools failed to make adequate 

yearly progress (AYP) in 2007–08. Of those, 1,583 were planning for restructuring, and 3,358 

were in the first year of implementing restructuring. These numbers are likely to increase 

because many states have established more ambitious targets for meeting the NCLB goal of 

student proficiency by 2013–14.

Persistently low-performing schools are more likely than other schools to serve high proportions 

of poor students and students of color (LeFloch et al., 2007; U.S. Government Accountability 

Office, 2007). Such differences raise concern that the poor quality of these schools may be 

reinforcing or even exacerbating inequities in educational opportunity and outcomes—the very 

inequities that NCLB intends to eliminate.

The pressure to meet NCLB's 2014 deadline has motivated many policymakers to seek ways to 

accelerate the process of improving schools. Some policy analysts have questioned the widely 

held consensus in the educational research literature that it takes at least three to five years to 

improve schools enough to produce substantial gains in student achievement. These analysts 

have asked what the field of education can learn from the private sector about quick, dramatic, 

and sustained organizational improvement.

Dramatic School Improvement Cross-site Study

In 2001, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) contracted with WestEd to conduct a 

longitudinal study of the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program.5 This large-scale 

national evaluation was expanded in 2006 to include a study of low-performing schools that 

dramatically improved their achievement in a relatively short time period. The purpose of this 

study was twofold: to conduct in-depth retrospective case studies of schools nationwide that 

received CSR grants and that demonstrated significant improvement in student achievement; and 

to understand the processes and practices in which they engaged to accomplish this 

improvement. This study, conducted jointly by WestEd and American Institutes for Research 

(AIR), is part of the larger national study, the Evaluation of the Comprehensive School Reform 

Program Implementation and Outcomes (ECSRIO).6

 5 With the reauthorization of ESEA, the CSR program became Part F of Title I (20 USC §6511).

6 The First-Year Report (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) addressed questions regarding the targeting of CSR 

funds, reform implementation, and the influence of district and state conditions on implementation. The Third-Year 

Report (U.S. Department of Education, 2008) addressed questions related to student achievement outcomes and 

reform implementation fidelity. Analyses explored the relationship between scientifically based model adoption and 

school-level achievement and the longitudinal relationship between CSR awards and school-level achievement. 

Other analyses examined the association between implementation levels and achievement gains. Qualitative case 

study analyses of CSR reform implementation in 15 pairs of schools added further detail.
Chapter 1 2

The universe of CSR schools was a particularly abundant place to look for schools undergoing 

improvement. CSR schools, on average, performed lower than other schools (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2004) and tended to be actively engaged in the process of improvement. For this 

report, the sites we visited provided compelling stories, both encouraging and cautionary, about 

how schools have worked to improve in the context of NCLB and its 2014 deadline.

To avoid reader confusion, we want to emphasize that this study examines quick and dramatic as 

well as slow-and-steady school improvement retrospectively, seeking to understand the policies, 

programs, and practices that contributed to “turning around” these schools’ performance. This 

stands in contrast to current federal policy objectives that aim to prospectively identify the 

lowest-performing schools in each state as targets for concerted turnaround interventions. The 

findings of this study strongly support this proactive approach and can inform the development 

of high quality school turnaround designs and programs in these sites. In addition, this report 

concludes with suggestions for an ongoing research agenda for contemporaneously studying 

low-performing schools that are targeted for school turnaround.

In the following sections, we summarize the literature on school change, describe this study’s 

conceptual framework, research questions, and methodology, and note some important cautions 

in interpreting study findings. 

Research on School Change

Studies of school improvement consistently identify several components of school-level practice 

that appear to contribute to improved outcomes for students. Researchers also have focused on 

evaluating reform models that combine several of these factors into a comprehensive, 

schoolwide approach (Herman et al., 1999; Borman et al., 2003). Empirical studies of how 

schools have implemented such models suggest that, in general, it takes time—typically three to 

five years—for schools to implement new practices or models effectively and to realize 

improvements in student achievement (Aladjem et al., 2006; Borman et al., 2003; Desimone, 

2000; Zhang et al., 2006). A recent conception utilizing a business-model offers a different view 

of how schools can improve more quickly and dramatically (Herman et al., 2008; Public Impact, 

2007).

The following factors or components appear to play important roles in school improvement, 

according to earlier research: 

Leadership. The literature on school improvement emphasizes the role of the principal 

as instructional leader (Camburn, Rowan, and Taylor, 2003; Anderson and Shirley, 1995; 

Weiss and Cambone, 1994). Instructional leadership involves principals observing and 

understanding classroom teaching and learning. Principals who are instructional leaders 

then use that knowledge to support teachers both in improving instruction and in their 

professional growth. The literature also points to involving other administrators and 

teachers through distributed forms of leadership (Elmore, 2000; Gronn, 2000; Hart, 1995; 

Heller and Firestone, 1995; Smylie, Conley, and Marks, 2002; Spillane, Halverson, and 

Diamond, 2001; Wallace, 2002).
Chapter 1 3

School climate. Successfully improving schools often first seek to establish a safe and 

orderly school environment and a culture focused on learning and student achievement, if 

such an environment and culture are not already present at the start of the reform effort 

(Datnow et al., 2006; Mosenthal et al., 2004; Stringfield and Teddlie, 1991). Parent and 

community involvement also are often important in supporting healthy school cultures 

(Datnow et al., 2006; Public Impact, 2007).

Instructional improvement strategies. Instruction is central to improving student 

outcomes. Strategies to improve instruction can focus on altering the content of 

instruction (curriculum), incorporating more effective pedagogical approaches based on 

student results, increasing the amount of instructional time, or improving the knowledge 

and skills of teachers and paraprofessionals. 

Schoolwide, coherent instructional programs—consisting both of pedagogical 

interventions and challenging curriculum—can profoundly influence the patterns of 

teaching and learning within individual classrooms (Datnow et al., 2006; Stringfield and 

Teddlie, 1991). Not surprisingly, how schools use time (throughout the school day) and 

the amount of time available for instruction (before and after school and over the course 

of the school year) matters for student achievement (Brookover et al., 1979; Brookover 

and Lezotte, 1977; Edmonds, 1979; Stringfield and Teddlie, 1991). 

Researchers have linked improved student performance to frequent and transparent use of 

student outcome data to guide instruction (Datnow et al., 2006). Support for staff 

development also is critical for improving instruction. Teachers in high-poverty schools 

tend to be less well-qualified than other teachers (Clotfelter et al., 2007). Thus, it is 

particularly important that these teachers engage in high-quality professional 

development and receive ongoing professional support (Berends, 2000; Datnow et al., 

2006; Ross et al., 2001). Garet and colleagues (2001) and Cohen and Hill (1998) both 

established the link between professional development and improved student 

achievement. One challenge to ongoing staff development is the high level of turnover in 

high-poverty schools (LeFloch et al., 2007).

External support. Over the past two decades, districts and states increased their 

involvement in initiating, planning, and supporting school improvement through a variety 

of strategies and tactics (Datnow et al., 2006), including the infusion of new resources. 

Many successful schools have supported their improvement strategies with the timely 

influx of supplemental, discretionary funding. This additional funding allows schools to 

access experts who would otherwise be unaffordable and to hire additional staff. States 

and districts can also stimulate school improvement through new accountability or 

technical assistance efforts (O’Day and Bitter, 2003). 

Abundant research suggests that the above factors play important roles in fostering improved 

student achievement. However, this research also suggests that the improvement process is 

complex and these factors can be addressed and combined in many different ways. 

To address the complexity of school improvement, reformers turned to comprehensive school 

reform models that specified several of the important components of practice and how these 
Chapter 1 4

components were to work together (Aladjem et al., 2006). Evaluations have demonstrated that 

some of these schoolwide models, when well-implemented, improve student outcomes (Aladjem 

et al., 2006). 

While research has consistently identified common factors associated with improved student 

outcomes, a debate has emerged recently about how long it takes to realize such improvement. A 

large body of research accumulated over several decades indicates that improvement is 

incremental, occurring over several years—what we call in this report slow-and-steady. For 

example, studies of CSR suggest that implementation of reform efforts for three to five years is 

typically the time necessary to see student achievement improve (Aladjem et al., 2006; Borman 

et al., 2003; Desimone, 2000; Zhang et al., 2006). New practices appear to be difficult to 

implement quickly or well, especially if other changes, such as changes in staffing or staff 

development, have to occur first.

Spurred in part by the accountability requirements of NCLB, and its goal of eliminating

achievement gaps by 2014, a body of recent policy literature has focused attention on 

accelerating school improvement. Drawing lessons from case studies of how failing businesses 

and corporations have turned around, some analysts suggest that schools can see the same sort of 

quick, dramatic improvement if they engage in a process similar to that used by these entities. 

Two central premises underlie the application of this business model to education: that schools, 

like businesses, can expect much more rapid-improvement than conventional wisdom suggests 

and that the key to rapid school improvement resides in the actions of the school leadership—

that is, the principal. The business-model perspective (Public Impact, 2007) emphasizes the 

actions of the principal as a change leader, the driver of school improvement. To achieve 

success, the leader engages in the following actions (among others): 

• concentrating on achieving a few tangible wins in year one;

• focusing clearly on improving instruction;

• implementing practices to achieve goals even when they deviate from norms; 

• conducting analysis and problem solving;

• driving for results; 

• influencing key actors inside and outside the school; and

• measuring and reporting student outcomes.

Many of these actions that emerged in recent studies of rapid school improvement align well 

with the larger body of literature on school improvement from the last 30 years. For example, 

case studies of these schools like prior studies of school improvement, recognize the importance 

of focusing on teaching and learning and the contextual supports, conditions, and catalysts for 
Chapter 1 5

improving teaching and learning.7 However, the business-model literature posits that schools that 

are persistently low-performing need a “jumpstart” to speed up improvement. While adherents 

find no fault with many of the elements of incremental school improvement, they do find fault 

with the widespread acceptance of the three-to-five-year time period required for improvement. 

They suggest that much more rapid-improvement is possible, with the principal providing the 

jumpstart by engaging in the actions listed above.

Conceptual Framework and Research Questions 

Recently, policy activists, researchers, and others began using the terms turnaround school and 

school turnaround with increasing frequency (Viadero, 2007) but without consistently defining 

these terms. For the purposes of this study, we use the term rapid-improvement school to refer to 

schools making quick and dramatic improvements in school-level achievement, usually in two 

years or less (Herman et al., 2008). Our objective in this study was to identify and study schools 

that made substantial improvements in student achievement, both those that fit the widely 

accepted time frame of three to five years and those that seemed to accomplish this more 

quickly. We looked for schools that showed quick and dramatic short-term growth (i.e., rapidimprovement schools) and contrasted them with those that showed more gradual improvement 

with minimal fluctuations over an extended time period (labeled slow-and-steady schools). 

Exhibit 1 displays the integrated framework that guides this report. As shown in the exhibit, 

school climate (or, more specifically, the school’s disciplinary policies and activities, focus on 

learning and achievement, and extent of parent and community involvement) is an integral part 

of the school, represented by the octagon. The school improvement strategies box reflects many 

of the components emphasized in the literature on school change, including instructional 

practices and curriculum, extended learning time, data use, and support for staff. 

The remaining parts of the exhibit unite school reform research and the business perspective on 

school improvement. The arrow striking through the school octagon represents the business 

perspective that focuses on the driving role that leadership—both principal leadership and 

distributed leadership—plays in achieving school improvement. The arrow pointing to the 

bottom of the octagon represents external factors that are important potential catalysts for school 

improvement including federal and state accountability requirements, state and district technical 

support such as professional development, and supplemental outside funding.

 7 While the leader actions listed above do not explicitly refer to teaching and learning, the explicit assumption in the 

leadership models is that the focus of the principal’s actions are on teaching and learning (Duke, n.d.; Picucci et al., 

2002a; Johnson and Asera, 1999).
Chapter 1 6

Exhibit 1

Integrated Framework for School Improvement

The concerns about persistently low-performing schools, prior research on factors that contribute 

to school improvement, and recent literature on rapid models of school improvement led us to 

four key research questions for this exploratory study:

To what extent do rapid-improvement CSR schools exist (i.e., schools that have made 

quick and dramatic improvement in student achievement)? Could we locate them among a 

national pool of CSR schools engaged in improvement efforts? 

Did the processes of reform across rapid-improvement schools and initially lowperforming schools that steadily improved at a slower pace (i.e., slow-and-steady) reflect 

the characteristics and strategies found in prior research on school improvement?

Did rapid-improvement schools differ in observable, systematic ways from slow-andsteady schools?

How did rapid-improvement schools and slow-and-steady schools address challenges to 

implementing and sustaining improvement strategies?
Chapter 1 7

Methodology

Rooted in the research questions and the framework outlined above, this study describes specific 

approaches used by improving schools. From the large pool of CSR grantees, the research team 

empirically identified schools with distinctive patterns of improved student achievement—rapidimprovement schools and slow-and-steady improvers. We then conducted in-depth qualitative 

case studies of these schools to understand the processes and practices in which they engaged. 

Similar to prior research on effective schools, this study looked at “outliers,” albeit using 

different criteria for selecting schools. While the effective schools literature examined schools 

that performed better than expected based on their demographic composition, this study focused 

particular attention on low-performing schools that improved student achievement substantially 

in a short time frame.

School Selection

Selecting sites for study proved to be a challenging task. To do so, we first identified schools 

using data on school-level achievement from CSR grantees from 1999–2000 through 2004–05. 

More current data for schools nationwide were not available from any database. The study team 

and a technical work group of experts in the fields of school reform and evaluation methodology 

convened for this study engaged in extended dialogue about the criteria to use to identify these 

schools. Exhibit 2 describes the criteria that emerged from those discussions.
Chapter 1 8

Exhibit 2

School Selection 

Criteria

From our database of CSR elementary schools with achievement data, 1,037 elementary schools 

in the bottom 50 percent in both reading and math achievement were identified as initially lowperforming from which 47 subsequently exhibited rapid-improvement and 53 slow-and-steady 

gains in both subjects. We also identified 909 initially low-performing CSR middle schools as 

indicated by reading and mathematics achievement in the bottom 75 percent of all CSR middle 

schools. From this list we identified 81 rapid-improvement middle schools and 36 that made 

slow-and-steady progress in either reading or math.8 Applying the remaining selection criteria 

led us to identify 30 schools for potential study (18 improvement schools and 12 comparison 

sites) from which 11 were subsequently visited for case studies. Nine of the 11 were chosen as 

improvement sites while two were initially selected as comparison sites. 

 8 The middle school criteria were less stringent because applying the elementary school selection criteria (i.e., 

bottom 50 percent of CSR schools exhibiting subsequent rapid or slow-and-steady achievement improvements in 

both reading and mathematics) did not yield any rapid improvement middle school sites for potential study.

• Comprehensive School Reform (CSR)—We limited the sample to schools that had 

received a federal CSR grant because (1) this study was part of a larger study of the CSR 

program, and (2) these schools were likely to be initially low-performing as well as 

actively engaged in improvement strategies.

• Achievement trends—Using 1999–2000 to 2004–05 achievement data from the National 

Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Score Database, we identified sites that were 

initially low-performing and made quick or slow-and-steady gains:

o Initial low performance: All schools must have been in the bottom 50 percent 

based on their 1999–2000 scores. 

o Rapid-improvement (RI): RI schools met two criteria: (1) They made annual gains 

in standardized achievement scores in reading and mathematics from 1999–2000 

to 2004–05. The RI schools were in the top 50 percent of gainers in each year. (2) 

We eliminated schools that showed declines in any given year between 1999–

2000 and 2004–05 that exceeded an established threshold. 

o Slow-and-steady (SS): We calculated the overall gains between 2000 and 2005 in 

both reading and math. The SS pool included schools with consistent annual gains 

in each subject.

• Additional factors—To account for cases in which changes in scores might be attributed 

to shifting student demographics, we excluded schools that showed a change in the 

number of free and reduced-price lunch program participants and minority students 

greater than 15 percent in a given year.

• Comparison schools—These were CSR schools, from the same database, that showed 

little or no gains in student achievement from 1999–2000 to 2004–05. To control for the 

influence of the district, we limited the comparison sites to those in the same district as 

other selected schools.
Chapter 1 9

Site Visits

We conducted intensive site visits to collect school and district respondents’ perspectives on the 

characteristics of their schools and how they improved student achievement. Two-person teams 

made three-day visits to each selected school once during the 2007–08 school year. These teams 

interviewed and conducted focus groups with principals, teachers, parents, community members, 

and district staff. We mined this wealth of qualitative information for themes to provide a richer 

understanding of the experiences of schools that exhibited improvements in student achievement. 

Following each visit, each research team prepared detailed case reports and organized the reports 

around CSR program components and additional factors from the business-model literature. 

After completing all visits in spring 2008, the full study team met for two days to discuss each 

site and emerging themes across schools.

Updated Achievement Analyses

After the initial identification of schools for study, we examined updated achievement patterns 

from the selected schools using data through 2006—07 for all tested grades obtained from 

individual state education agency Web sites. This effort informed the study’s qualitative process 

and also determined the accuracy of our original classification of schools. We also examined 

patterns in district and state achievement relative to those at the selected schools to determine 

how school-level achievement compared to achievement at the district and state levels. Using the 

percentages of students reaching proficiency in reading or English language arts and math on 

state assessments through spring 2007, along with the average district and state performance in 

the tested grades and subjects, we revised the description of schools’ achievement patterns in 

some sites to more accurately represent their standing through the latest year of the study. We 

also examined demographic data (e.g., school enrollment levels), along with the case study 

information, to assess whether factors other than school practices and strategies might have been 

strongly related to achievement patterns. Exhibit 3 lists the schools included in this study, their 

selected characteristics, and 2002–07 achievement patterns.

In the course of undertaking these more thorough examinations of school achievement patterns 

using more recent data, we found that the original distinction between comparison and sample 

schools did not hold. In particular, we initially selected Martin Elementary and Stratford 

Elementary as comparison sites. However, after updating their achievement data and analyzing 

additional information, we found both schools to be making substantial achievement gains 

during the time period that we were studying (2002–07), so we retained these two schools for 

analysis as part of our improving schools sample.9

Furthermore, while we excluded from the initial sample school category schools that showed 

declines in any year between 1999–2000 and 2004–05, some rapid-improvement schools initially 

identified for case studies did not sustain their achievement gains in the longer term. The 

extended achievement data indicated that two of the eight schools identified for case studies did 

not sustain these gains through the 2006–07 school year. The most glaring example of this 

discrepancy was Cooke. The percentage of students scoring proficient or above in reading at this 

 9 The school names used in this report are fictitious. They were created to ensure respondent confidentiality.
Chapter 1 10

school nearly doubled from 40 percent in 2003 to 78 percent two years later, far exceeding the 

district average performance of 55 percent (and on par with the state average). It was for this 

reason that we selected Cooke as a sample school candidate for this study using a national 

dataset. In the subsequent two years, however, the school dropped by 20 percentage points to 58 

percent proficient, while the district and state averages rose. By 2007, Cooke showed schoolwide 

proficiency in reading that was 23 percentage points behind the state and 9 percentage points 

behind the district.

Despite these categorization changes, most of our initial sample schools continued to sustain 

their gains through 2007. Two of the strongest examples of quick, large, and sustained growth 

relative to the district and state average were Freedom and Weston Elementary. In 2002, 29 

percent of students at Freedom scored proficient in reading as compared to its district and the 

state averages of 55 and 75 percent, respectively. By 2007, Freedom continued to improve to 99 

percent proficient, considerably above the district and state averages of 82 and 85 percent, 

respectively. Likewise, Weston showed growth in reading of 50 percentage points (to 93 percent 

proficient) during this same time period, as compared to a growth of 21 percentage points for its 

district and 10 percentage points for the state.

Indeed, when examined relative to their states, we see two distinct profiles to the achievement 

patterns of the rapid-improvement schools. The first profile—the classic profile—consists of 

schools that improved student achievement dramatically during the initial years of our study 

period and sustained that improvement over time. The classic profile schools exhibited the 

greatest growth in student achievement per year for each of the years studied (between 4 and 8 

percentage points). They exhibited a dramatic “spike” in achievement over one to two years, 

which was maintained over at least another two to four years. Three of the eight rapidimprovement schools fit this profile. 

The second profile—the disparate profile—consists of five schools that either had smaller, but 

still substantial, improvements in achievement over a year or two, or issues regarding the 

sustainability of achievement gains. One school, Chelsea, posted impressive gains, but relatively 

late in the period we studied; therefore, we only had one year of follow-up data to judge whether 

the improvements at Chelsea were sustained. We had enough data for two of the disparate profile 

schools to learn that they actually reverted to their original performance at the start of the study 

period. One might argue that schools failing to sustain their improvements should not be 

included for study. We argue, on the contrary, that such schools demonstrated the ability to 

achieve quick and dramatic improvements but not the ability to sustain them. By including these 

schools we were able to see what they shared with other schools exhibiting rapid increases in 

student achievement and in what ways they were different that might explain their inability to 

sustain apparent initial improvements. In the last group of schools were the three slow-andsteady schools that improved along a more linear path than the rapid-improvement schools. 

These schools achieved overall improvement in student achievement but, unlike the rapidimprovement schools, it took them more than three years to do so. 

Ultimately after sampling, screening, recruitment, and recategorizations based on updated 

achievement analyses, our study sample consisted of 11 schools—eight rapid-improvement 

schools and three slow-and-steady schools —with no comparison sites. They are described in 

Exhibit 3. 
Chapter 1 11

Exhibit 3

Selected Characteristics of Visited Schools

Name*

Grade 

Span CSR Model Localea 2002-07Achievement Pattern

Difference between 

Overall School 

Performance and 

State Performanceb 2006-07 

Enrollment

2006-07 % 

Students receiving 

FRPLc 2006-07

% Ethnicity

Number of 

Principals 

During School 

Improvement 

Period

Mean Pupil 

Teacher Ratio

2002 = -40

2004 = -8

99.5% AfricanFreedom American

Elementary K–5

School 

Development 

Program Midsize city

Rapid-improvement 

(classic profile) 2007 = +14 398 97 0.5% Hispanic 1 14

2001 = -23

2003 = +16

14% AfricanAmerican

Mill Elementary PK–6 Success for All Large city

Rapid-improvement 

(classic profile) 2007 = + 3 665 77 5% Hispanic 1 18.2

2002 = -31

2004 = +11

87% AfricanWeston American

Elementary K–5 4 Blocks Reading Small city

Rapid-improvement 

(classic profile) 2007 = +7 175 90 1% Hispanic 1 10.3

2004 = -32

2006 = - 4

6% AfricanChelsea American

Elementary PK–8

Interactive 

Teaching & 

Learning Project Large city

Rapid-improvement 

(disparate profile) 2007 = - 2 269 96 83% Hispanic 1 15.4

2003 = -25

2005 = - 5

75% AfricanDogwood American

Middle 6–8

Every Student a 

Learner Rural

Rapid-improvement 

(disparate profile) 2007 = - 6 339 85 9% Hispanic 1 15.8

2001 = -25

2003 = - 2

14% AfricanStratford American

Elementary** PK–6 Success for All Large city

Rapid-improvement 

(disparate profile) 2007 = - 3 632 81 10% Hispanic 2 17.8

2003 = -23

2005 = - 5

56% AfricanCooke American

Elementary K–5 Core Knowledge Large city

Rapid-improvement 

(disparate profile) 2007 = -25 289 89 11% Hispanic 1 13.9

2003 = -16

2005 = + 2

16% AfricanWalker American

Academy PK–12

High Schools That 

Work

Urban fringe of 

large city

Rapid-improvement 

(disparate profile) 2007 = -14 255 65 27% Hispanic 2 13

2002 = - 2

2004 = -11 Lincoln 

Elementary K–8 Success for All Rural Slow-and-steady 2007 = - 6 326 n/a 100% White 1 14.7

2003 = -27

2005 = -20

38% AfricanMartin American

Elementary** PK–5 Core Knowledge Large city Slow-and-steady 2007 = -14 461 73 13% Hispanic 2 15.6

2001 = -10

2003 = - 6

47% AfricanAmerican

Swift Middle 6–8 Lightspan Rural Slow-and-steady 2007 = - 1 663 73 3% Hispanic 2 14.1

a As currently designated by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

b

 These figures represent the difference between the overall school combined percentage of students at or above proficient in reading or language arts 

and mathematics compared to the corresponding state combined percentage. The first year of data represents the baseline year preceding the school 

improvement period. The second data point is two years after the baseline year. The third data point is the final year for which data were available. The 

scores for Lincoln Elementary are based on reading only.

c

 FRPL = Free and reduced-price lunches

* School names are fictitious to protect confidentiality commitments 

** Original comparison school

*
Chapter 1 12 

Cautions

Several factors complicated this study and suggest the need for caution in attributing student 

outcomes to specific actions taken by schools. First, we studied only 11 rapid-improvement 

schools and slow-and-steady schools. This sample of schools did not include any comparison 

sites (despite attempts to include such schools in the study), making it impossible to determine 

whether the factors we observed as being associated with rapid and dramatic school 

improvement were not also present in schools that did not experience appreciable achievement 

gains. Nor did the study include any examples in which fundamental school structural 

arrangements were altered such as might occur through state takeover, reconstitution or charter 

school conversion. Shifts in the composition of student populations in many study schools made 

it difficult to distinguish whether achievement changes were attributable to school-specific 

efforts or to the demographic changes. In addition, each of the study schools engaged in unique, 

complex, and multifaceted improvement efforts, making it both difficult and ill-advised to relate 

changes in achievement to any single critical factor. For these reasons, we cannot discern the 

degree to which specific, individual school factors are systematically related to the academic 

improvement patterns observed at these schools. We also cannot generalize the conditions and 

factors we report for these particular sites to other schools—similar actions at other schools will 

not necessarily lead to similar results. All of the schools we visited, however, achieved some 

degree of success in improving student achievement, and the factors we report appeared to have 

contributed to that success. 

In the later chapters, we present detailed descriptions and illustrations of some of the practices 

these schools adopted in the hope that they can illuminate potential strategies for others to 

consider. We also comment on the methodological challenges that face researchers of this critical 

area of education policy and practice. 

The next chapter examines patterns of findings across school sites and summarizes what we 

learned about dramatic school improvement from the 11 cases. In Chapters 3–7, we discuss our 

observations about school practices and key themes that emerged from our site visits. Chapter 8 

presents lessons learned about studying dramatic school improvement. The concluding chapter 

summarizes our findings.
Chapter 2 13

CHAPTER 2: CLASSIFYING IMPROVING SCHOOLS

This study examined 11 CSR schools that were initially low-performing and substantially 

improved student performance at some point between 1999–2000 and 2004–05. Some schools 

made quick, dramatic improvement, while others progressed at a slow-and-steady pace. This 

chapter summarizes the similarities and differences in characteristics and practices across the 11 

schools and subgrouping of those schools. Exhibit 4 presents several key characteristics of each 

school and assesses the reported contributions of various factors to each school’s improvement. 

The chapter concludes with a vignette of one of the more compelling school improvement 

stories.

Exhibit 4 summarizes key characteristics of the schools in this study on dimensions that have 

been identified as important for school improvement. The rapid-improvement schools are 

presented in columns 3 through 10 (Freedom through Walker). Within this group, the first three 

schools (Freedom, Mill, and Weston) are classic profile schools. The next five (Chelsea, Cooke, 

Dogwood, Stratford, and Walker) are disparate profile schools. Two of those schools (Cooke and 

Walker) showed substantial declines in their initial achievement gains in more recent years. The 

last three columns list the slow-and-steady schools (Lincoln, Martin, and Swift).

The exhibit rows display key characteristics present in the schools and document their perceived 

relationship to the schools’ improved achievement, according to respondent data. The 

characteristics are grouped into four sets that this study examined: leadership and staffing, school 

climate, instructional program, and external support. Some of the general characteristics are 

described in the literature review in Chapter 1. Chapters 3–6 further illustrate these 

characteristics. 

Rapid-improvement schools and slow-and-steady schools shared many characteristics.

All 11 schools exhibited several common experiences with regard to school leadership, 

instructional improvement strategies, school climate, and external support. Ten of the 11 schools 

implemented new reading curricula, used data for school improvement, and focused on student 

behavior. All but three of the schools had new principals at the start of the improvement period. 

Lastly, all 11 schools reported obtaining and using additional resources beyond their CSR grants. 

These factors contributed to improved student outcomes in the majority of the schools, according 

to those we interviewed.
Chapter 2 14

Exhibit 4

Perceived Relationships Between School Characteristics and Student Achievement

Rapid-Improvement

Classic Profile Disparate Profile Slow-and-Steady

Name Freedom 

(K–5)

Mill 

(PK–6)

Weston 

(K–5)

Chelsea 

(PK–8)

Cooke 

(K–5)

Dogwood 

(6–8)

Stratford 

(PK–6)

Walker 

(PK–

12)

Lincoln 

(K–8)

Martin 

(PK–5)

Swift 

(6–8)

New principal at start of 

improvement period + + + na + + 0/U + + na na

Principal actively sought 

rapid, dramatic 

improvement

+ + + na 0 na na na 0 0 na

Principal pursued 

managerial approach to 

school leadership

na na na + na + + 0 na na 0

Distributed leadership + + na na + na na na + + +

Leadership and Staffing

Staff reassignment/ 

replacement + + na na + na na - na U na

Discipline/student 

behavior + + + na + + U U U + +

School 

Climate

Community/parent 

involvement + 0 + + U 0 U na + 0 0

New curriculum in 

reading + + U U na + U + + + +

New curriculum in 

mathematics U + U U na + U na 0 0 +

Instructional 

Improvement 

Strategies

Instructional changes + + + U U U U U + + +

Continued
Chapter 2 15

Continued

Rapid-Improvement

Classic Profile Disparate Profile Slow-and-Steady

Name Freedom 

(K–5)

Mill 

(PK–6)

Weston 

(K–5)

Chelsea 

(PK–8)

Cooke 

(K–5)

Dogwood 

(6–8)

Stratford 

(PK–6)

Walker 

(PK–

12)

Lincoln 

(K–8)

Martin 

(PK–5)

Swift 

(6–8)

Reallocation of time 

during the school 

day/increased learning 

time (beyond the regular 

school day)

+ + + + U U U na U na 0

Use of coaches/external 

consultants + + na U U U na U U U +

Professional development + + 0 + na U U + + U +

Instructional Improvement Strategies

Ongoing use of data for 

improvement/transparent, 

public use of data

+ + + + 0 + + 0 + na +

District/state initiatives + na + + 0 + na - 0 0 +

External 

Support

Additional funding + + U + 0 U U + + + +

How to Read: 

• A plus sign (+) indicates that, according to respondent data, the factor appeared to be positively associated with the improvements in student 

achievement.

• A minus sign (-) indicates that, according to respondent data, the factor appeared to be negatively associated with the improved student 

achievement. 

• A zero (0) indicates that the factor, though present at the school, appeared to have had no relationship to the school improvement.

• A “U” indicates that the factor was present at the school, but the data were unclear or inconclusive about the factor’s relationship to student 

achievement.

• A symbol for “not applicable” (na) indicates that, based on respondent data, the factor was not present in that school.
Chapter 2 16

Beyond these similarities, we observed some different patterns of activities for the three 

different types of schools—rapid-improvement—classic profile, rapid-improvement—

disparate profile, and slow-and-steady.10 As described previously, the classic profile 

schools were those that stood out for the magnitude and sustainability of improvement. 

The disparate profile schools experienced some improvement, but their outcomes were 

not as dramatic as the classic profile schools, and two of the schools ultimately failed to 

sustain the improvements that landed them in the study’s sample in the first place. In 

addition to the rapid-improvement schools, three schools exhibited slow-and-steady 

improvement. These shared some similarities with, yet also differed from, the rapidimprovement schools.

Below, we summarize and compare our findings for these three types of schools.

Classic Profile Schools

The data summarized in Exhibit 4 suggest that the success of the classic profile schools—

in the views of respondents—stems from the specifics of their leadership, their 

instructional programs, and a focus on school climate. Each of the three classic profile 

schools had a new principal just prior to its improvement in student achievement and who 

stayed at the school throughout the improvement period. These principals, moreover, 

adopted the orientation of a dynamic change leader as opposed to a more managerial style 

of leadership. They actively sought rapid, dramatic improvement.

The instructional programs of these schools involved new reading and math curricula, 

and instructional improvements appeared related to success, according to respondents. 

Similarly, reallocation of time during the school day and additional learning time in two 

of three schools were credited with improved student outcomes in these schools. One 

consistent feature of the classic profile schools was that they all reported using data for 

improvement both transparently and publicly—for example, with the use of data walls. 

(See Chapter 5 for a vignette on how Mill used data for improvement.) While staff in the 

full sample of schools reported an emphasis on school climate, in the classic profile 

schools, community and parent involvement were reported to have played important roles 

in helping to improve student outcomes.

Slow-and-Steady Schools

Like the classic profile schools, the slow-and-steady schools’ improvements were 

reportedly related to new reading curricula and instructional changes. However, unlike 

the classic profile schools, neither the reallocation of instructional time nor additional 

learning time seemed to play much of a role in the slow-and-steady schools. Also, while 

two of the three slow-and-steady schools reported successfully using data in an ongoing 

way for improvement, none used data in the transparent and public ways that the classic 

profile schools did.

 10 See page 10 for a definition of this category.
Chapter 2 17

The slow-and-steady schools had new principals at the beginning of their improvement 

process, but two of the three had multiple principals during the improvement period. 

While two of the three schools had principals who were reported to be change leaders—

that is, principals attempting rapid, dramatic improvement—all three schools appeared to 

rely more on distributed leadership that included teachers and other school staff. 

Respondents in slow-and-steady schools were more likely than respondents in rapidimprovement schools to see distributed leadership as contributing to the schools’ 

improvement. The forms of distributed leadership varied but included involving staff in 

making decisions and implementing changes particularly related to the implementation of 

discipline policies, new curricula, and data-driven decision-making systems and 

processes.

Disparate Profile Schools

The disparate profile schools show some striking contrasts to both the classic profile 

schools and the slow-and-steady schools.11 While the disparate profile schools also made 

speedy and impressive performance gains, their paths to improvement and its 

sustainability were more varied and unclear than those of the classic profile schools or the 

slow-and-steady schools. Respondents in all but one were not able to report what 

accounted for their school’s success. While the disparate profile schools implemented 

new curricula and focused on instructional changes, like the classic profile schools and 

the slow-and-steady schools, respondents were less likely to attribute student outcomes to 

these changes. Similarly, while respondents in these schools reported some reallocation 

and increase in instructional time, the use of time was not consistently viewed as 

contributing to their success. Like the slow-and-steady schools, however, the more 

successful disparate profile schools’ use of data in an ongoing way appeared to matter, 

though they did not use data in the transparent public way that the classic profile schools 

did.

A striking difference between the disparate profile schools and the classic profile schools 

was the number of principals and their style of leadership. Three of the five disparate 

profile schools had a single principal while the other two had multiple principals during 

their improvement period. By contrast, all classic profile schools consistently had a single 

principal. Furthermore, the leadership styles of the principals at four of the five disparate 

profile schools were more managerial and less directed toward change than those at the 

classic profile schools.

Two of the disparate profile schools (Cooke and Walker) did not sustain their gains in 

achievement, dropping back from their achievement highs.12 In many respects, these 

improvements looked remarkably like the other disparate profile schools. However, they 

were plagued by persistently high staff turnover, which may have contributed to the drops 

 11 See page 10 for a definition of this category.

12 We classified a third school (Chelsea) as a disparate profile school because its improvement period was 

relatively recent and, as such, there was not enough data to determine whether its quick and dramatic 

performance increases would be sustained. 
Chapter 2 18

in student achievement. One was a charter school, which may have contributed to the 

high staff turnover.

One Classic Profile School

The classic profile schools represent an archetype of school improvement. This report

devotes much space to detailing the specific activities undertaken by each of these 

schools. Below we describe one of them in some depth to illustrate how the 

interdependence of, and interaction among, several factors contribute to successful school 

improvement.

Vignette: Weston Elementary—Putting it All Together

Weston is a small, K–5 elementary school in a poor neighborhood in a southeastern state. 

The school building, built in 1926, was well-equipped, well-maintained, and surrounded 

by tidy landscaping when we visited. However, school staff warned that properties just a 

few blocks from the school were in disrepair and crime was a serious concern. In 2007–

08, only about 170 students attended Weston, of which about 90 percent were black, 9 

percent were white, and 1 percent were Hispanic. Eighty-four percent of students were 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

In 1999, Weston “reopened” as a magnet school for the arts. The school had received a 

federal magnet school grant, and the historic school building underwent substantial 

renovations. Teachers reported that during the “serious arts” years, the students became 

accomplished musicians, dancers, and artists, devoting a substantial proportion of their 

school day to their artistic endeavors. Academically, however, the school suffered. By 

some reports, basic school supplies, such as math textbooks, were lacking. More 

importantly, teachers said, the school culture was one in which the arts came first and 

academics came second. Rather than focusing on content standards, one teacher 

explained that they were primarily driven by “hobby teaching.” With a new principal in 

2001, Weston began to limit arts instruction and increased a focus on core academic 

subjects. In 2003, and again in 2004, Weston experienced substantial student 

achievement gains in both English language arts and mathematics. Despite a small dip, 

these gains have generally been maintained.

Leadership. By all accounts, Weston’s improvement period began under the leadership of 

a new principal who was transferred to Weston in 2001 by the central office in order to 

help stimulate school improvement. One teacher explained, “[District administrators] 

brought in one of the best principals in the division. We needed a good academic leader 

to come in, who knew how to turn the school around, and [who] knew how to motivate 

us.” Ms. Williams was described as a strong instructional leader, dedicated, extremely 

organized, and with high expectations for faculty and students. 

School Climate. One of the first things that teachers at Weston mentioned was having 

consistent practices across the school, including disciplinary practices. Early in the 

improvement period, staff jointly developed a set of “organizational procedures” that 
Chapter 2 19

detail the use of homework folders, appropriate backpack regulations, appropriate times 

to sharpen pencils, whether coats are permitted in classrooms, and how to walk in the 

hallway. Teachers asserted that having consistent expectations enabled them to 

accomplish more academically and that the students’ “minds are settled, and they are 

ready to learn.”

The caring, cohesive school culture was a noteworthy feature of Weston. Teachers, 

administrators, parents, and community members repeated similar phrases, most 

frequently, “We’re all on the same page,” or “It takes a village.” Likewise, the words 

“family” or “love” were often heard during interviews with the full range of stakeholders. 

A deep sense of community bound the school. As one parent explained: 

Overall, the staff, even down to the janitors and the crossing guards, it’s a 

family. I drop my child off; I’m never worried. Everyone goes the extra 

mile. Plenty of things are implemented to get these kids where they need 

to be academically, and I think every child here feels special to someone. 

Instructional Improvement Strategies—Extended Learning Time and Opportunities. 

Weston did not simply provide instruction 180 days a year, releasing students at 3:00 

each afternoon. Rather, the school was on a year-round schedule, and instruction was 

provided during the three-week intersessions dispersed throughout the school year. (The 

one exception was the four-week break during the summer.) As teachers explained it, 

they taught during two of the three weeks in each intersession. Participation was optional 

for teachers and students, but most teachers did teach, and 92 percent of students attended 

during intersession. Teachers observed, “It’s amazing how much they forget during long 

breaks,” and having fewer extended breaks reduced review time. Moreover, “They don’t 

have to go back into their home environments for any long period of time. Here, there’s 

heat and food, and they feel secure.” Weston also offers many tutoring opportunities, one 

teacher said, “We have fourth- and fifth-grade students who come at 7:30 and don’t leave 

until 4:30. Other third-grade students arrive early and don’t leave until 5:00 with afterschool tutoring.”

A focus on student outcomes was an integral part of the school’s culture and went hand in 

hand with the extended learning opportunities. Teachers at Weston were active analysts 

of student data, which they used regularly to target instruction on topics and for particular 

students. As one teacher explained, “Every nine weeks, we assess students and we 

calculate which students passed which questions. Then we have intersession geared 

toward the skills students did not get. It’s time-consuming, but the spreadsheet [in which 

we enter student test results] is helpful to target interventions.” Any topic on which fewer 

than 75 percent of students “pass” became the focus of review.

Instructional Improvement Strategies—Small Class Size, Small School Size. Weston is a 

small school, and most teachers have very small classes. In 2007–08, one teacher had 24 

students, which was considered to be exceptionally large; the average class size was 

closer to 15 students. Because of this, one teacher explained, “When you have 12 

students, there is no excuse for a teacher to let the students slip between the cracks. You 
Chapter 2 20

can tell why they’re not succeeding.” Numerous stakeholders credited the small school 

size as a factor that facilitated a caring environment and effective instruction.

External Support. In the fall of 2002, Weston’s low achievement scores had put them on 

the list for state intervention. State representatives visited the school and forced the 

school stakeholders to confront their low test scores. If the school failed to improve, state 

officials threatened, teachers would lose their jobs. In addition to the threats, the state 

provided some financial and technical support—the latter being from members of teams 

from schools with similar demographics but much higher performance levels. Teachers 

later acknowledged that the state intervention was painful but necessary. One said, “It 

was hard, but it was the best thing that ever happened.” Another teacher said of the state 

takeover, “It put a new light in my head—you don’t just go in, close the classroom door, 

and do whatever you want.” In addition, teachers credited some external strategies as 

instrumental to their success. The most frequently mentioned external supports included 

the Four Blocks of Reading and the Ruby Payne workshops.

What is notable about Weston is that we cannot easily attribute its success to any one or 

two factors. Rather, Weston’s success is found in how the school worked on all fronts 

and integrated all of its varied activities.

Summary

In this chapter we identified factors across our 11 schools that respondents considered 

important in explaining improvements in student achievement. We divided our schools 

into three groups: rapid-improvement schools—either classic profile or disparate 

profile—and slow-and-steady. While we found instances, especially in the classic profile 

schools, that were consistent with what the literature suggests is critical to rapidimprovement (change leader, data-driven decision-making, etc.), we also found cases in 

which improvement occurred without these features and in which other factors were 

salient. Overall, there was substantial variability of practices within each of the three 

groups, and substantial similarity in approaches across the different groups of schools. 

Chapters 3–7 look at the many ways the schools in this study engaged in activities that 

fostered their improvements.
Chapter 3 21

CHAPTER 3: LEADERSHIP

Literature on successful turnaround organizations describes the importance of specific leader 

capabilities and actions. These actions include, but are not limited to, focusing on a few tangible 

successes early on, breaking from the norm to achieve goals, conveying a positive vision for the 

future, and analyzing and reporting data frequently and publicly (Public Impact, 2007). 

Literature on school improvement emphasizes the importance of the principal, especially as an 

instructional leader (Aladjem et al., 2006; Kurki, Boyle, and Aladjem, 2006; Stringfield and 

Teddlie, 1991).

Principals represent just one form of school leadership. Research has increasingly recognized the 

critical role of shared—or distributed—leadership among staff in improvement efforts, 

particularly with respect to implementation and sustainability of the reforms. Distributed 

leadership may come in various forms, ranging from a few selected teacher leaders to more 

widespread involvement (Elmore, 2000; Spillane, 2006).

In line with the research literature, our study found that both principal and distributed leadership 

were important in stimulating, implementing, and, in some cases, sustaining reforms to improve 

student achievement. Further, we found that whether the principal had a change-orientated style 

that was more consistent with the literature or a managerial leadership style, the level of reform 

generally increased soon after a new principal came on board and sent a clear message that 

change was necessary. We also found several examples of principals sharing school 

improvement responsibility with their staff by mobilizing them and building a professional 

community. This distributed leadership strategy appeared especially important in providing 

continuity when schools experienced principal turnover, as was the case in two of the three slowand-steady schools visited. 

Principal Leadership—What We Found

The arrival and sustained leadership of new principals were often seen as instrumental to quick 

and sustained school improvement.

In five of the six sample schools in which student achievement was sustained, heightened levels 

of reform coincided with the arrival of a new principal who remained in place during the entire 

improvement period. In these cases, school—and oftentimes district—respondents generally 

attributed increases in student achievement to the new principal’s direction, identifying the 

principal as the primary catalyst—or one of the primary catalysts—for change. 

Although all schools in our study initially struggled with student performance issues, most of 

their districts did not purposely assign experienced principals to these sites with the explicit 

responsibility of turning around the school. 

The district specifically recruited and assigned an experienced new principal to address chronic 

low performance, or related issues, in just three of the schools visited (two of eight rapidimprovement schools and one of three slow-and-steady schools). Six schools had first-year 

principals during the course of the study time frame—three had been assistant principals 
Chapter 3 22

elsewhere in the district and another was the school’s former assistant principal. However, 

coming into the school without extensive experience as a principal was not always perceived as a 

disadvantage. One superintendent commented on the benefits of assigning a former assistant 

principal: “He was a new administrator. From my perspective, that was a good thing because he 

didn’t come in with preconceived notions.” 

Prior to their improvements, several schools reported a history of leadership turnover or a lack 

of direction that made staff receptive to the need for dramatic change. 

For example, Freedom experienced five principals in seven years. Respondents described a 

situation in which these multiple administrators had not provided structure or direction and 

essentially told teachers to do whatever they felt most comfortable doing. Teachers had been 

working independently to obtain individual goals instead of working together toward a common 

goal under one leader. Many teachers responded positively to their new principal’s leadership, 

which was more organized and directional, because they recognized the need to be more 

effective. 

Principals seen as playing a significant role in their school’s improvement exhibited one of two 

leadership styles. 

We observed each school principal embodying one of two general styles—change-oriented or 

managerial. By our definition, the change-oriented leaders in the study schools quickly set the 

tone and expectations for change and took quick action to introduce immediate reform. They 

took their own initiative to forge ahead with or without outside support. By contrast, principals 

with a managerial style of leadership generally took the district’s direction to implement reform, 

garnering staff support and creating a conducive working environment to make the reform 

successful. Managers may have initiated some of their own changes, but they generally did not 

appear to be trendsetters. 

A principal’s leadership style appeared to have been a contributing factor to all six cases of 

sustained school improvement that we observed in this study. However, the change-oriented 

style was apparent in only half of these cases; in the other three, the principal displayed 

characteristics of a managerial leader.13 These findings suggest that a dynamic leadership style 

may not be necessary for turning a school around.

Principals—even the change-oriented leaders—described their approach to change as being 

incremental and having a strategic focus while at the same time, they sent a clear message that 

things would be different from the outset. 

Even principals who introduced quick changes at the start of their tenure generally 

acknowledged the need to balance substantial changes with fostering a culture that would 

support the reforms. In a number of schools, the initial focus was to establish a safe, orderly 

school climate, as described in greater detail in the “School Climate” section later in this report.

 13 See page 10 for a definition of this category.
Chapter 3 23

This incremental approach did not prevent principals from clearly conveying the message that 

change was expected. For example, the new principal at Dogwood immediately changed the 

focus of the administration from “facilities” to improving student achievement through 

instruction, increased attendance, and improved discipline. Similarly, principals at Freedom and 

Mill would regularly remind staff that if they were not willing or unable to commit to the 

necessary changes to raise student achievement, the principal could provide transfer forms or 

help them find “other arrangements.” 

A significant focus of many principals was to mobilize and motivate staff and to build a 

professional community. 

Most of the principals in the schools we studied readily acknowledged that they did not operate 

in isolation and credited staff for being the backbone behind the reforms. Building a supportive, 

trusting collegial community that would coalesce around the goal of raising student achievement 

was a priority for these principals. To accomplish this, they made themselves accessible to staff 

(through open-door policies and being visible throughout the school) and frequently provided 

positive encouragement to teachers. One principal, for example, instituted the practice of 

regularly leaving positive feedback in teachers’ mailboxes based on her classroom observations. 

Another celebrated staff with appreciation days, facilitated the development of social 

relationships and trust by holding social gatherings—such as birthday parties and breakfasts—

and boosted morale with gifts and staff recognition.

To facilitate staff buy-in and build a collaborative community, several principals instituted 

specific new policies such as common planning periods, mandating grade-level meetings, 

providing professional development or additional release time, and disseminating research 

materials to staff. Other principals also gave teachers a degree of discretion and flexibility to 

motivate them, convey professional respect to staff, and help alleviate burnout. For example, the 

principal at Freedom encouraged staff to take time off on occasion if they felt overwhelmed. In 

supporting the “whole teacher,” the principal believed staff would be able to better support their 

students when their own lives were in order.

Many principals matched their high expectations for student performance by obtaining extra 

school resources to facilitate improvement reforms. Principals also frequently reinforced high 

expectations with a heightened focus on teacher accountability.

As an important complement to setting high expectations, several principals in the 11 sites 

leveraged additional resources for their school as well as instituted new policies to strengthen 

teacher accountability. Freedom’s principal provided materials, technology, and staff 

development (including academic coaches to develop the instructional capacity of teachers), and 

ensured that the school environment was clean and welcoming. The principal at Cooke served as 

a negotiator between the school and district, and staff considered her a “master at getting 

resources” to address school needs. When the budget for Stratford included money for afterschool tutoring but no money for classroom supplies, the principal gave teachers points for afterschool tutoring, and permitted early leave on Fridays to encourage their participation. Teachers 

could redeem the points for classroom materials that limited state remediation funds purchased.
Chapter 3 24

New policies instituted by principals to promote teacher accountability included conducting 

more frequent classroom observations, setting specific expectations for teacher behaviors in the 

classroom, providing feedback to teachers on the quality of their instruction, and carefully 

monitoring student performance data. For example, Freedom increased its focus on academics, 

which included an expectation for teachers to increase “time-on-task.” This expectation was 

reinforced through principal and assistant principal classroom walk-throughs where time-on-task 

was monitored. 

How Two Principals Created a Collaborative Community Built on High Expectations With

the Purpose of Raising Student Achievement

Vignette: Mill Elementary—A Visionary Leader Creating a Culture of High Expectations

Mill respondents unanimously agreed that their principal had been essential to creating and 

shaping the reforms. The principal’s dynamic leadership style had been honed over more than 30 

years as an educator. After earning an Administration and Supervision License, she served as a 

principal in a series of urban public elementary schools beginning in 1993, and arrived at Mill in 

August 2000. 

The principal noted that she was not specifically recruited nor given the explicit task of turning 

Mill around. Conversely, the principal said that district administrators expected she wouldn’t be 

at the school long and, when hired, did not inform her of the school’s low performance.

District staff who had known this principal for a number of years identified her as having “a very 

competitive spirit—she has to be number one. She has instilled that spirit in her teachers and 

staff; they will do what it takes.” This same respondent also pointed out that “she has an amazing 

talent for adapting something she has learned for her school with incredible speed and great 

insight.” 

Soon after her arrival, the principal set into motion a series of changes that had an immediate 

impact on Mill’s school climate. For example, although the principal was not allowed to make 

changes for a six-month period (in accordance with district policy), she immediately reduced the 

recess from 30 to 15 minutes and required that students “earn” recess by completing homework 

and adhering to rules of conduct—an act that invoked indignation from many parents. Believing 

that creating a safe, orderly learning environment was an essential prerequisite to addressing 

academic achievement and launching subsequent reforms, the principal also implemented a 

discipline plan, with the assistance of a district consultant, and publicly posted the school rules. 

When she first arrived, the principal learned that teachers were not regularly holding grade-level 

meetings. By the end of her first year, however, the principal reassigned to other grade levels 

more than a third of her teaching staff who appeared stagnant in their current positions and held 

them accountable for holding grade-level meetings regularly. The purpose was to stimulate 

collaboration and revitalize the professional climate. The principal further enhanced the 

professional climate by instituting mandatory research teams. 
Chapter 3 25

The principal made it clear that she expected reforms. One teacher remarked that the principal 

would say at staff meetings, “This is not a place for everyone; if you’re not willing to improve, 

you have to be willing to leave this school.” As a precursor to undertaking reform, the principal, 

during her second year at Mill, required all staff to read a motivational book, Who Moved My 

Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life. The principal 

was able to make changes in ways that resulted in staff respect and appreciation with minimal 

resistance. Within two months of the principal’s arrival, Mill teachers signed a letter thanking the 

superintendent for hiring her.

To encourage a cohesive community with a focus on instruction, the principal instituted annual 

schoolwide themes early in her tenure. These themes transformed the school’s hallways and 

classrooms into outer space (“Come Meet Our Stars”), construction zones (“Under Construction: 

Caution—You Are Entering a Learning Zone”), beaches (“Riding the Wave to Success”), and 

sports arenas (“We Are Champions”). The themes rallied both staff and students alike and 

spruced up the appearance of the aging facility prior to renovations. 

Teachers remarked that the former principal had good intentions but “felt sorry” for the students. 

The current principal made a decisive stand against that perspective, starting with clear, explicit 

expectations for discipline. She created a culture of high expectations for all students irrespective 

of their home lives, which was reinforced by data analysis, transparency, and accountability. As 

one respondent described, “The excuses stop at the school door. The principal started that 

[philosophy], and it has filtered throughout the Mill culture.” In further conveying this message 

to students, the principal conducted one-on-one conferences with each student, starting in fall 

2002, to review his or her prior state assessment results and to set high performance 

expectations.

The principal also set clear expectations for staff through her “Mountain to Die On” vision. 

Distributed at the beginning of every year, this document delineated twelve points that the 

principal deemed essential to Mill’s school culture. Key concepts communicated through this 

document included: (1) that teachers will “be visible” throughout the day; (2) that instruction will 

be driven by data, and that data about standards-based learning goals and student performance 

will be visible on data boards created daily; and (3) that “all teachers will be trainers” and will 

engage in ongoing professional development.

The principal indicated that she felt “comfortable taking risks” because she had the backing of 

the district administration. Although the district laid out specific requirements, the principal 

believed that the district supported principals proposing “bold ideas” about strategies that could 

improve academic achievement.

Vignette: Freedom Elementary—Daily Persistence in Selling the Message of High Expectations

Freedom respondents credited the principal, in her fifth year at the school at the time of the study 

site visit, with the school’s major improvement—moving the school from the lowest-performing 

elementary school in the district to the highest-performing. The seven-year period prior to this 

principal’s arrival had been marked by turmoil and a succession of five principals. 
Chapter 3 26

The principal held two master’s degrees, one in counseling and guidance, and another in 

administration and supervision with an emphasis on urban studies and instructional leadership. 

Her previous experience included serving for five years as an assistant principal in a highpoverty area elementary school, directing after-school programs, and providing leadership for 

drug-free schools. Freedom was her first assignment as a principal.

The demographics and poor performance data were familiar to the principal, but the school 

improvement needs were “nevertheless daunting,” she said. The school had a reputation for 

being “on the back burner.” Teacher morale was low, and student behavior problems were 

severe. Both children and parents were sometimes out of control. To improve teacher and student 

performance, the principal indicated she first had to work toward enhancing the feelings of selfworth of the entire school community.

The principal’s early goal for the school was “to get through one day at a time.” When she first 

entered the school building, it was in disarray, she recalled. Furniture was everywhere in the 

halls. She immediately directed the custodial staff to clean, paint, and organize the school.

The principal listened and observed for herself. She met with business partners, parents, and key 

players in the school community, and identified a group of committed, experienced teachers with 

whom she began to consult regularly. 

During her first year, the principal indicated she used the broken record approach: “We can do 

this, I know we can, I know what you think, but we can do this.” Teachers and parents were 

somewhat skeptical given their previous experience, but two factors with this principal were 

different, they recalled. Parents felt she was relentless in voicing her conviction, and she worked 

tirelessly to make Freedom a school that all would be proud of. Teachers remarked that the 

principal was often at school from eight in the morning until well into evening, and was 

frequently found at the school on weekends. She set the tone for commitment and others 

followed. Her philosophy, the principal explained, was that if you make people think they’re the 

best thing since sliced bread, they would deliver.

She distributed leadership among staff (described further in the “Distributed Leadership” section 

below), enabling a paradigm shift in the thinking and belief system of the entire school 

community. According to school leaders, a new belief—a sense among teachers and students that 

hard work and investment could result in success for individuals and the group—replaced their 

previous sense of victimization and belief that no one cared about this school and its community. 

The school’s administrative and instructional leaders felt this new belief structure generated a 

new energy and effort by teachers and students that facilitated implementation of instructional 

improvement efforts, and significantly contributed to their successes. The school’s performance 

did, in fact, begin to change as students’ scores rose exponentially.

Distributed Leadership—What We Found

The role of distributed leadership, as a factor in explaining substantial increases in student 

achievement, seemed apparent in the three slow-and-steady schools visited in this study. 
Chapter 3 27

Two of these schools experienced a change in principals during their respective improvement 

period. This leads us to hypothesize that these schools’ continued achievement growth across 

two school leaders might be partially attributed to the continuity provided by a distributed 

leadership model. While principals often cited distributed leadership as a key strategy in 

building a culture of change and responsibility, some clearly went “beyond the basics” to models 

in which substantial authority and responsibility were given to significant numbers of school 

staff. 

All 11 schools reported some level of shared decision-making. A common means of participation 

was through a leadership team that guided the development of the school’s improvement plan, 

often as part of a district requirement. However, a number of principals placed a major emphasis 

on enhancing the roles and responsibilities of school staff for school improvement. Prominent 

examples included enhanced existing structures by recruiting more experienced staff than prior 

administrations to participate in school decision-making, opening up the decision-making 

process to the broader staff community (particularly when the previous involvement had been 

limited to a few members), or instituting committees or research teams that zeroed in on specific 

topics to support school improvement. 

Principals created a variety of structures to distribute leadership—some with selected 

participants, others requiring universal participation. In all cases, principals tied those structures 

to school improvement efforts.

The principal at Freedom strengthened the school’s existing planning and management team by 

selecting a strong group of experienced teachers and requiring them to review school progress 

and conduct planning sessions. At Swift, an external improvement specialist began working with 

a group of teachers whom the principal had selected because they were well-respected in the 

school. The external specialist then trained these teachers to roll out “best practices” for their 

colleagues at Swift.

In other examples, teachers selected classroom strategies for grade-level or schoolwide 

implementation, or developed or selected new curricula. The principal at Martin initiated a 

volunteer teacher committee for interviewing and hiring new school staff. The principal did not 

participate, and the committee vote was final. The intent was to garner more support from the 

teachers by making them more responsible for their new colleagues.

Reported benefits of distributed leadership were interrelated and included shared responsibility, 

greater staff buy-in, more effective implementation of new practices, continuity of leadership, 

and enhanced collaboration. 

By drawing upon teachers from across grade levels, the organization of committees in Mill 

enhanced both horizontal (within grade) and vertical (across grades) collaboration. Teachers met 

within their grade level for weekly planning meetings as well as across grades for monthly 

committee meetings. These committees also increased ownership, as described by one 

respondent: “We’re not told what to do. We work together to make it happen.”

Respondents indicated that distributed leadership enhanced ownership of the reforms and 

facilitated the implementation of new strategies. For example, teachers at Swift believed that 
Chapter 3 28

they were creating their own reforms, even though they were receiving considerable external 

help, because their own senior teachers were rolling out the strategies. Similarly, the teacher 

leaders at Freedom attributed the success of the school’s improvement efforts partially to the 

collaborative team approach.

Respondents also indicated that shared responsibility can be critical to maintaining continuity of 

leadership and thereby sustaining reforms, particularly as these schools previously had 

considerable turnover in principals. At Freedom, for example, the staff selected by the principal 

to serve on the management team continued to serve in pivotal leadership roles at the school five 

years later. When the principal left Swift following the 2005–06 school year, its teacher leaders 

continued to lead and run the school with seemingly little guidance from the new principal. 

How One School Developed Teacher Leaders to Share the Responsibility of School 

Improvement Efforts 

Vignette: Mill Elementary—Every Teacher a Leader

The principal at Mill focused on the cultivation of leadership skills among teachers, stating that 

one of her values was creating a school culture in which “every teacher becomes a leader.” The 

principal encouraged shared responsibility and ownership (“I want the instructional teams to 

have ownership of things”) while maintaining accountability (“I try to keep my hands off, but I 

look for evidence of standards-based instruction everywhere I go [within the school].”). 

In her second year at Mill (2001–02), the principal created four Instructional Research Teams to 

help staff understand and implement new approaches to instruction. The principal created this 

structure on her own initiative, believing there were too many talented teachers who were not 

involved: “To get them involved, you have to make them involved.” In the beginning, some 

teachers resisted, as they did not want to give up the time to participate. The principal mandated 

that all teachers participate, and eventually participation on the teams became an integral part of 

the professional culture. Staff chose their own research teams, and, to guide their choices, the 

principal provided detailed descriptions of each team, including its responsibilities and what 

participants were to accomplish over the course of the year. The principal gave a wide degree of 

discretion to the research teams and met with them at the beginning of the school year to review 

why the team was formed, its objectives, and the expectations associated with participants’ roles. 

Although she required that teams submit meeting minutes, she did not attend subsequent 

meetings, as she wanted to encourage ownership and avoid micromanaging. 

These teams evolved over time to meet the needs of the school, and by 2006, they covered the 

areas of data, instructional strategies, climate and community, and grade level chairs. The teams, 

which met monthly, drew upon teachers from across grade levels, so both horizontal and vertical 

collaboration resulted from this organizational structure. The teams also contributed to staff 

development through book studies. Descriptions of two of the four teams follow.

The data team, led by the two Title I teachers who collected the data and posted schoolwide 

graphs, met bimonthly. The whole team analyzed the data and looked for fidelity of practices, 

such as collaborative scoring and instructional practices. According to the school improvement 
Chapter 3 29

plan, the data team was responsible for “matching learning gaps to instructional strategies by 

monitoring both implementation of strategies and growth in student achievement.” This team 

also was responsible for determining the focus and objectives for the school improvement plan 

by examining and disaggregating data.

The instructional strategy team covered problem solving, reading comprehension, and writing 

topics. The team also identified and rolled out best practices that started within a particular grade 

but were applicable to all grades. As one member noted, “We are becoming the decisionmakers.” Members of the instructional strategy team also broke into smaller groups when needed 

(e.g., reading team, math team) and were becoming “specialists” in reading or math in response 

to a drop in student test scores and an identified need to improve instruction in these areas.

Another example of shared decision-making at Mill was in the high level of staff involvement in 

the selection and design of classroom strategies. Often, before instituting big changes, the 

principal asked teachers to serve on a research team that would determine best practices and 

choose “pilot” teams for the new changes. Staff who attended district-level professional 

development sessions would select and implement the suggested interventions on a small-scale 

to assess effectiveness. Staff determined effectiveness by looking at pre- and post-data. They 

would then share the results with other teachers and determine whether to continue and scale-up 

to other grades. One curricular strategy started with one fourth-grade teacher, then was adopted 

by the fourth-grade team after a trial run, and was eventually used schoolwide. While some 

concepts came from consultants, teachers led the development of the materials used in the 

implementation. 

In line with this process, Mill teachers developed a reading program that was based on research 

from the National Reading Panel and the support of an external consultant. The teachers 

developed this program to replace a packaged CSR program. The principal noted that once the 

school got away from the packaged program, the teachers gained genuine ownership and a sense 

that “research made a difference.”

As a result of building effective teacher leaders, the school lost nine staff to administrative 

positions, and six more staff members were working toward their principal licenses as of 2007–

08. However, even with these teachers leaving Mill to become leaders of other schools or at the 

district level, Mill’s distributed leadership structure appeared to be continuing to generate new 

teacher leaders at the school to take their place. The principal described continually identifying 

one to four potential leaders from the ranks each year so that the “platform of leaders is never left 

empty.” She noted further, “There is always someone to step up, and we just need to give them 

the opportunity. Some teachers may want to take on leadership roles, but just don’t know how 

[until they are given the opportunity].” As an example, she tapped two first-year teachers to lead 

the school’s new teacher academy in 2008–09.

Chapter 4 31

CHAPTER 4: SCHOOL CLIMATE

The literature on school improvement and turnaround schools suggests that improving the 

climate in troubled schools can accompany—and facilitate—improved achievement (Herman et 

al., 2008). Changes to the climate that make the school safer and more orderly can serve a dual 

purpose: they demonstrate that it is possible to make quick and dramatic changes to the school, 

motivating staff and students to support improvement efforts (Herman et al., 2008); and they 

eliminate a set of pressing, nonacademic needs to allow staff to focus on academics (Kowal and 

Hassel, 2005). The research literature also notes the importance of creating parent and 

community support for a school as it goes through the dramatic changes involved in school 

improvement. Principals of low-performing schools that successfully turned around student 

achievement work closely with the community and families to ensure their support of and 

involvement in the school changes (e.g., Picucci et al., 2002b).

School respondents across nine of the 11 schools visited, considered changes made to improve 

school climate have been important factors in explaining impressive academic gains. All of the 

schools in this study faced school climate challenges at the beginning of the improvement period, 

such as a disruptive student learning environment or uninvolved parents, and each school 

adopted specific strategies intended to improve this condition. In about half of the schools, new 

principals in our schools considered addressing school climate concerns as a necessary first step 

in laying the groundwork for instructional improvement efforts. Common approaches to 

improving school climate included enhancing behavior management efforts, involving parents 

meaningfully in school governance, and soliciting resources from the community. 

Establishing an Orderly Learning Environment—What We Found

All of the schools included in this study faced significant student management challenges in the 

earlier years of the study time frame. Respondents described the school climate prior to the 

reforms as disruptive and dysfunctional, with a high level of disciplinary problems. Three years 

prior to the dramatic increase in achievement, Mill reported 438 suspensions at the midyear 

point, with a population of only 679 students, equaling roughly a suspension for every two in 

three students (although some were repeat offenders). Nearly 1,000 student instructional days 

were missed due to either in- or out-of-school suspensions. In another example, prior to the 

2003–04 school year, Dogwood was considered by school staff to be the worst school in the area 

and some even referred to it as having been the “Wild West,” a place where students did as they 

pleased in an environment with lax discipline enforcement. Staff described Dogwood as a school 

with a chaotic atmosphere in which there was not a strong focus on academics, and attendance 

and student achievement were low. 

In half of the study schools, explicit changes to address these concerns coincided with the arrival 

of a new principal who tackled student behavior issues as a first step in creating an environment 

conducive to learning. In other words, principals and staff alike viewed a safe, orderly learning 

environment to be a necessary prerequisite for raising academic achievement and implementing 

other reforms. 

Respondents in schools undertaking steps to improve discipline generally noted that these efforts 

resulted in reduced disciplinary referrals and suspensions and improved attendance, as well as 
Chapter 4 32

increased teacher collaboration and ownership of all students. For example, two years after the 

arrival of a new principal who quickly initiated student management changes, suspensions at 

Mill dropped from 438 to 28. Similarly, behavioral referrals decreased considerably at Dogwood, 

from 780 in 2004 to 570 in 2007, after a new principal instituted an incentive program for 

students to combat excessive absences and poor discipline.

Several schools addressed student management early on by establishing clear, consistent 

schoolwide behavior rules and expectations; conveying those expectations to staff, students, and 

families; and establishing unambiguous consequences for misbehavior. 

At Mill, a simple but effective first step toward improving student behavior was to prominently 

display behavior rules throughout the school. With the district’s help, Mill also adopted a Level 

1–4 disciplinary program, which delineated action to be taken for specific behavior infractions. 

The actions increased in intensity with each level. Another approach enabled teachers to 

consistently practice and enforce the established expectations.

Some schools instituted incentive programs that reward good behavior and achievement 

accomplishments.

Some school programs allowed students to earn points through good behavior and redeem the 

points for prizes. Although the rewards themselves could be a powerful and tangible motivation, 

particularly given that many of these students came from high-poverty households, there was 

also a social aspect to the motivation. As one teacher explained, “When the kids feel like they’re 

getting rewards for their hard work, they work harder. When they feel like someone else outside 

of just their parents is paying attention to them, they want to soar and go beyond just whatever 

limits were set for them previously.”

Such reward programs also recognized academic performance and attendance. The principal at 

one school recognized students who made top scores on their benchmark assessments through 

activities such as an “Honors’ Breakfast,” a “Math Bowl,” and cash payments. This school 

encouraged greater attendance on Fridays by offering students their choice of a class—physical 

education, art, band, or technology—each Friday. For students who did not have absences or 

behavioral problems, the principal also hosted social events such as dances, movie nights, and 

ice cream socials.

Some schools implemented an extensive system of behavior supports. 

Two schools in particular described comprehensive behavior intervention systems designed to 

identify and help students at risk of academic failure. In addition to using a national evidencebased behavior intervention program designed to teach children how to resolve social problems, 

Martin collaborated with a local university that placed graduate social work students at the site to 

counsel children. 

Another approach schools took was to hold parents accountable for student absences.

Although not commonly described among the study schools, two districts sanctioned parents for 

excessive student absences. In one district, parents of students at Martin were required to appear 

in court if their children were absent regularly. In 2002–03, another district required parents of 
Chapter 4 33

Dogwood students with at least 10 absences to meet with the district attorney, a juvenile court 

judge, a social worker, and a school representative. If they failed to comply, parents could be 

fined or jailed. As a result, Dogwood reported nearly a 50 percent decline in students being 

absent for 15 or more days, from 21 percent in 2001–02 to 11 percent in 2006–07. Alternatively, 

two schools had home-school liaisons who would call parents if the student was absent, and 

sometimes would pick up the student if the parent was unable to take him or her to school.

How Two Schools Improved Student Discipline, Laying the Groundwork for Improved 

Student Achievement 

Vignette: Freedom Elementary—Behavior Modification Plus

Freedom’s approach to overcoming its student discipline challenge was multifaceted and appears 

to have been successful. Respondents indicated that the lives of students at Freedom reflected a 

myriad of problems, many of which were family-based. The students resided in a 1960s type 

housing project, which surrounded the school, and their families often struggled with and 

suffered from the effects of long-standing poverty. 

Both the principal and the school district understood the need to deal effectively with school 

discipline if they were going to have any chance of improving test scores. The first thing the 

principal did in collaboration with the district superintendent was to develop a set of 

partnerships. Through a program known as Communities in Schools (CIS), Freedom established 

partnerships with a local university and various other community-based institutions. 

At the request of Freedom Elementary, the university developed a behavioral management 

program based on positive reinforcement principles. Specifically, students earned “Eagle Bucks” 

for meeting the behavioral standards in a code of conduct set by the program for the school. 

Students earned Eagle Bucks by exhibiting good behavior, attendance, and scholarship, and 

could periodically redeem the bucks at a school store. School respondents said the students 

appreciated this reward system. If their behavior did not measure up to the standards of the 

program, students were not allowed to participate until they demonstrated a sincere interest in 

meeting the program’s requirements. According to several school leadership members, students 

highly valued just being able to participate in the program. 

The CIS partnership with Freedom developed a more intensive program for students who were 

not able to benefit from the Eagle Bucks program. The main objective of the program was to 

enable the students to develop control over their own behavior through behavioral modification 

techniques. With the assistance of CIS and other local mental health service providers, this 

program provided support in the school setting for serious behavior issues that may manifest in 

students suffering from severe household issues, such as abuse, sudden separation, death in the 

family, and incarceration, that have strongly impacted the child or family and may have taken 

place over long periods of time. To qualify for this program, the students needed to have tried 

and failed to respond to other programs, such as Eagle Bucks, or help provided by the school 

counselor. If these efforts failed and the student continued to be disruptive, and the parents 

concurred, this program would remove the student from his or her classroom and place him or 
Chapter 4 34

her in small behavioral modification groups. The student would remain in school and in the 

program until being able to demonstrate sufficient behavioral control to rejoin his or her 

classmates. 

According to school leadership and several teachers at Freedom, this program has been highly 

effective and has significantly diminished disruptive behavior. The cost of the program was 

subsidized by the federal Medicare Program and did not come out of the district’s scant 

resources. Respondents noted positive effects on students and on overall school functioning by 

removing and working with students who often disrupted the rest of the students’ learning. 

School partners provided other nonacademic services to address the needs of students and their 

families. As the principal indicated:

Everything I can do for them [the children] to make sure they don’t become a 

statistic, I will do. Volunteers, tutors, lunch buddies, I would love for every child 

to have a mentor. This is a nurturing environment; it has to be. Our children come 

with so much baggage and see nothing except their parents incarcerated and 

shootings. I want to make sure they see the alternative.

For students who have led the way for their classmates, the school instituted “Content of 

Character” awards to reward students who had shown outstanding character.

Vignette: Weston Elementary—Drilling Clear and Consistent Expectations

One of the first things that teachers at Weston mentioned in interviews was that they 

implemented consistent practices across the school, including expectations for student behavior. 

Experienced teachers recalled that prior to the improvement period, noise levels in the school 

were high, and, according to the current principal, “everything seemed disorganized as far as 

behavior was concerned.” Early in the improvement period, staff developed a set of 

organizational procedures” that specified details regarding homework folders, appropriate 

backpacks, when to sharpen pencils, whether coats were permitted in classrooms, and how to 

walk in the hallway. Examples of such organizational procedures follow:

Students should have a pass when they are in the hall.

Students should not wear heavy coats in class. They can keep a light jacket or 

sweater at school.

The teacher will provide a designated place for completed work.

Students should come directly to the classroom in the morning. They should not 

be allowed to go visit other teachers or to go to the bathroom without going to 

class first.

Teachers asserted that having consistent expectations enabled them to accomplish more 

academically, and as the students’ “minds are settled, they are ready to learn.” Teachers also 
Chapter 4 35

explained that because the students’ home lives may be somewhat unstable, students benefited 

from a structured environment with clear expectations.

These common disciplinary and behavior expectations were drilled into the students during the 

first week of the school year, which the teachers called, “boot camp.” As one teacher explained:

At the beginning of the year, we spend the first week of school in boot camp. We 

don’t do any instructing. We get them acclimated to [their new] grade. We teach 

them the process of being in the school during the day, what to do when someone 

walks in the room, how to line up, when to sharpen [their pencils] how to pack up 

for the end of the day, how to unpack at the beginning of the school day... It’s 

really helpful. At the end of the third or fourth day, they get a little bored of it, but 

then they really know it, and if something goes wrong, we can say, “Remember 

what you learned in boot camp?”

In particular, teachers encouraged students to walk through the hallways silently, with their 

hands behind their backs. They explained that having the students walk that way in the halls 

encourages good posture, and helps them keep their hands to themselves. This practice was the 

idea of the rapid-improvement school principal, who told the children that was how “great 

thinkers walked.” 

Teachers also reported that they relied on the principal and each other for support when students 

misbehaved. One teacher commented that if she was having a difficult time with a student, she 

could bring him or her to a neighboring classroom for a short time to cool down. This degree of 

interdependence was made possible by a context in which, as many stakeholders commented, 

“We’re all on the same page.”

Parent and Community Involvement—What We Found

Respondents at all study sites reported developing a high level of parent and community 

involvement as a challenge, and in some cases, the nature of involvement was also a concern. 

For example, at one site, parents entered and left the school freely, even confronting staff 

aggressively. At another site, community members and school staff essentially ran the school 

because of constant administrative turnover, creating some tension when a new principal arrived. 

In these cases, new principals had to act quickly to establish their authority by communicating 

with and demonstrating to parents and community members a desire and commitment for school 

improvement. They demonstrated this commitment by immediately addressing areas of needed 

improvement upon their arrival.

At many of the schools we visited, parents were impressed with the positive improvements 

taking place at their respective schools. They acknowledged the positive school climate and the 

improved achievement. They also recognized the commitment of staff to improving the schools 

and their willingness and ability to work with parents and community for improvement. Parents 

at Freedom indicated that students were eager to come to school and loved their teachers and 

principal. While parents at some of the schools reported they were initially hesitant or resistant to 

the actions taken by the new principal, they gradually came to support these changes when the 

efforts produced positive results (e.g., improved test scores, fewer student behavioral problems). 
Chapter 4 36

Increasing community involvement was also a focus for many of the schools. For example, 

Chelsea’s principal collaborated with a local social service agency and the parents it had 

empowered to serve as school and community leaders. Principals at several other sites sought 

resources from community partners, such as local universities, faith-based organizations, and 

other community-based organizations. 

Specific Strategies for Involving Parents and the Community

Several schools provided opportunities for parents and community members to participate in 

school governance and decision-making.

Parents and community members participated actively on school site councils and other 

governing committees with control over school resources and, at one site, the hiring of the school 

principal. Two schools had councils with considerable influence over school decision-making. 

Parents at Chelsea formed a majority on the governing council of the school. The council also 

included community representatives. The district designed all its governing councils with parent 

and community majorities to increase principal accountability. At Lincoln, state reforms gave the 

school and its council considerable governing autonomy, especially in hiring the principal and 

deciding how to use discretionary funds to implement the school improvement plan.

School leaders actively sought community resources as part of reform efforts.

Several schools obtained non-monetary resources from local institutions of higher education, 

faith- and community-based organizations, and state and local noneducation agencies. These 

resources were used predominantly to provide additional instruction and tutoring to students 

outside of school hours and to address student behavior, discipline, and safety issues. 

Principals at the sites sought community resources for several reasons. First, they acknowledged 

that monetary resources were not always sufficient to address the needs of the school. Second, 

they considered the communities to be an integral part of the school. These schools pursued 

community resources in the form of volunteers from faith-based organizations, volunteer tutors 

from local businesses, after-school enrichment and tutoring programs through local community 

centers, and donations from local businesses for facilities improvements. For example, the 

principal at Freedom worked with a local university and a municipal behavioral health authority 

to develop behavior incentive plans for all students and interventions for students with serious 

behavior problems. At Weston, students majoring in education at a local university prepared 

social studies lessons aligned with student classroom instruction and taught these lessons after 

school to third-graders.
Chapter 4 37

How Two Schools Facilitated Parent and Community Involvement

Vignette: Lincoln Elementary—Balancing Principal and Community Authority in a Tight-knit 

Community

Lincoln faced a number of challenges in its attempt to increase parent and community 

involvement. A primary challenge was to address the nature of parent involvement that 

developed during a lengthy period of inadequate leadership at the school. Parents more or less 

felt they ran the school and that any demand they made would be satisfied. Another challenge 

was the rural geographic spread of the district, which posed a problem for some families in 

getting to the school to participate in school events or to volunteer. In addition, the relatively 

high levels of poverty and lack of formal education of many families in the area created barriers 

to increased family involvement.

Despite these challenges, interviewees indicated that traditionally the parents and community of 

Lincoln have played an important role in the school. While economically disadvantaged, Lincoln 

is a close-knit community in which the various members were interconnected in multiple ways. 

For example, multiple generations of families attended Lincoln. Teachers were generally from 

the area and have family members who also teach, or have taught, at the school. Teachers often 

knew students and their family members outside the school context. At the beginning of the 

school year, especially in kindergarten, teachers visited their students’ homes. This interaction 

between school staff and students’ families helped students who were experiencing difficulties 

continue to progress in their education. Teachers mentioned several examples of students 

struggling with home situations that came to teachers’ attention because of their familiarity with 

the families.

Dealing with an activist role of community members in the day-to-day running and oversight of 

the school became a top priority of the new principal. She established the authority of her 

position at the school and at the same time fostered a resurgence of community involvement. She 

accomplished both by presenting a clear and positive vision of school improvement for the 

school and reestablishing proper boundaries and roles for school professionals and parent and 

community participants. 

Parents and community members began to involve themselves in the school formally and 

informally. Interviewees noted an increased number of parents attending school events such as 

sports activities, holiday meals, and school fundraisers over the last five years. Community 

organizations also facilitated parent and community involvement. The local Family Resource 

Center, started in 1993, provides resources to families to enhance their involvement in the school 

and establish necessary conditions for learning. The center links families with counseling 

resources, conducts home visits, helps to promote attendance, and provides food to families over 

Thanksgiving and Christmas. 

Community involvement, above and beyond the Family Resource Center, is now an important 

part of Lincoln. A group called Foster Grandparents provides reading tutoring to students during 

and after school through a grant provided by an international children’s charitable organization. 

The tutors, trained by a literacy specialist, work with 65 to 75 students over a year. The local 
Chapter 4 38

parks and recreation department provides playgrounds and physical activities for students, and 

installed a walking track. The regional education agency, as well as regional colleges and 

universities, provides instructional resources and support for teachers. Local and regional arts 

organizations provide cultural enrichment for the students. The local library has a summer 

reading program serving 10 to 15 children. The coal companies contributed funding for school 

facilities. In addition, interviewees mentioned coordination of efforts among many of the 

organizations. For example, the parks and recreation department and the regional arts 

organization worked together to bring a traveling theater group to Lincoln.

Participation of the school community was essential to Lincoln’s rapid and dramatic 

improvement. Led by the new principal, educators and community participants revived their 

effectiveness in bringing a variety of community resources to improve the circumstances of 

students and their families.

Vignette: Chelsea Elementary—Pushing for Greater Parent Voice

Parent involvement has become an integral part of Chelsea’s school culture over the past 11 

years, with a local social service agency playing a major role in increasing parent participation. 

The agency began working with Chelsea in January 1997. The major purpose of the agency was 

to identify the needs of immigrant families in the neighborhood and provide parents the tools to 

take on leadership positions in the school and other entities in the community. The agency found 

working through the schools with parents was the best way to fulfill its mission. 

According to a representative from the agency, parent involvement at Chelsea looked very 

different 11 years ago, prior to the school’s improvement period. She described the typical 

response of teachers to parents as follows: “If parents asked,‘What can I do to help my child?’ 

the standard response [from the school] was, ‘Go home, turn off the television, clear the table, 

[create] a quiet space, and require your child to sit for two hours and do homework while you 

supervise.’” Yet, the issue was that parents had concerns and wanted a larger voice in their 

children’s schooling. The agency set as its first goal reaching out to parents who were not 

involved in the school. 

The turning point for parent and community involvement occurred during the 2001–02 school 

year when the agency garnered a grant from the district office. The grant was part of a courtmandated desegregation plan to reduce inequities in predominantly black and Hispanic public 

schools. The purpose of the grant was to increase shared decision-making in the school and help 

schools increase community involvement by providing professional development for teachers on 

how to work with parents to help them help their children. In partnership with Chelsea, the 

agency implemented community involvement activities that continue to take place through the 

current school year (2007–08). To attain the objective of holding a parent involvement evening 

every quarter of the school year, Chelsea implemented the following activities: a reading night, a 

math and science night, a sports event, and “Kermes,” a traditional Mexican celebration to 

congratulate students for completing the academic year. School staff members were impressed 

and reported that, through their partnership with the agency, they brought up to 300 to 400 

parents to each of the evening events over the course of the years.
Chapter 4 39

According to the agency representative and staff, the principal was initially reluctant to open the 

school to outside partners and to heavy parent involvement in the late 1990s. At the time, 

Chelsea was overcrowded and was plagued with gangs and discipline problems. Yet, at the 

persistence of the agency, the principal agreed to allow the school to host its first evening event, 

which turned out to be a success. According to the agency representative, the principal 

eventually became more receptive to having a true partnership with the parents and other 

members of the community. After working with the agency for a number of years, the principal 

and school staff found the partnership with the agency benefited the school. The current principal 

commented that the agency was a regular and positive presence at Chelsea and consistently 

followed through in its work with parents.

Chapter 5 41

CHAPTER 5: INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES

The research literature suggests that a relentless focus on improving student achievement is a 

common factor in being able to turnaround low performance in schools. Low-performing schools 

that improve use a variety of instructional improvement strategies, which include aligning the 

curriculum with state standards and assessments and changing the curriculum for core subjects 

(Herman et al., 2008).14 Adopting new curricula and aligning curricula with state standards and 

assessments are complex undertakings (Webb, 1999).

Another instructional strategy common to these schools is increasing the quantity of instructional 

time. One approach has been to revise the school schedule to remove distractions (e.g., 

announcements or bells), thereby improving the quality of instruction (Picucci et al., 2002a). 

Furthermore, those who have studied school reform efforts have highlighted the importance of 

ongoing efforts to track student progress and fine-tune approaches based on student data 

(Herman et al., 2008). 

Teachers are the lynchpin for any instructional improvement efforts. How well new curricula are 

implemented, the value of extended learning time, and the appropriate use of data all hinge on 

the skill and expertise of teachers, which, in turn can depend on their ongoing professional 

learning. The use of consultants and coaches has been a common practice for teacher 

professional development. For example, 29 states used external professionals (e.g., school 

improvement specialists, retired teachers, principals) to help schools identified for improvement 

under NCLB (LeFloch et al., 2007). Such support sometimes involves visits from a “mentor 

team” or state technical assistance team trained to help the school plan and implement school 

improvement activities (LeFloch et al., 2007).

All schools in this study reported making instructional improvements to raise student 

achievement. Common strategies to enhance instruction, in line with the research literature, 

included aligning the curriculum to district or state standards and assessments and adopting a 

new curriculum, increased learning time through an extended school year, after-school programs, 

and block scheduling within the school day. While eight of the 11 schools reported some efforts 

to increase learning time, the efforts of the classic profile rapid-improvement schools appeared to 

meet with greater success, according to respondents.15

To support instructional improvement efforts, almost all schools reported sharing and 

systematically using data to guide instructional changes. In the classic profile schools, the use of 

data appeared to be especially transparent and was credited with playing a role in the rapidimprovement in student outcomes. Professional development from coaches and external 

consultants, often hired through district or state support, also appeared to be key in improving 

instruction, especially in the classic profile schools.

 14 Aligning curriculum, standards, and assessments is a strategy that goes beyond schools that dramatically 

improve. Of the schools identified for improvement under NCLB, 72 percent report having aligned their curriculum 

with district and state standards and assessments as part of their reform effort (Le Floch et al., 2007). 

15 See page 10 for a definition of this category.
Chapter 5 42

New Curriculum Adoption and Alignment with Standards—What We Found

Most of the 11 schools studied implemented new curricula during the improvement period.

While the perceived impact of new curricula was unclear in some cases, in others it was viewed 

as a positive factor in improving student achievement. This impact was apparent in reading in all 

three slow-and-steady schools and in two of the three classic profile rapid-improvement schools 

in which dissatisfaction with existing models led to major curricula changes. For example, 

Freedom changed its K–3 reading curriculum in 1999–2000 from Houghton-Mifflin, which 

featured a whole language approach to literacy instruction, to the highly structured, phonicsdriven Open Court program. Five years later, the school adopted Open Court as a language arts 

curriculum as well, and use of Open Court for reading and language arts had become schoolwide 

by 2007–08. 

Similarly, during her first year, the principal at Mill designated a group of teachers to look into 

alternatives to the Success for All curriculum, which the principal considered to be inadequately 

research-based. The result was the development of a new “homegrown” curriculum model—the 

Mill Learning and Reading Program. 

At both Freedom and Mill, respondents credited the curriculum reforms as contributing to 

improvements in school achievement trajectories.

The perceived impact of curriculum change was stronger in reading than in mathematics. 

Respondents attributed achievement gains in seven of the 10 schools adopting new curricula 

during the improvement period to changes in the reading curricula. However, we found such 

perceptions of positive impact in only three of nine schools adopting new math curricula. 

Some schools visited also initiated efforts to better align the school curriculum with state 

standards and assessments. 

Although the district tended to initiate the curriculum alignment process, some level of teacher 

influence was cited in all cases where alignment of curriculum with standards and assessments 

was a major school improvement focus.

At the highest level of collaboration, teachers at Lincoln worked with other teachers in the 

district to align the curriculum with state standards and to develop instructional sequencing and 

pacing guides. Teachers at Martin had the flexibility to embellish the newly aligned curriculum 

with their own materials, while those at Freedom appeared dedicated to using the aligned 

curriculum as a centerpiece of their improvement efforts. 

Additional Learning Time—What We Found

Opportunities for extended learning time in the study schools commonly included before- and 

after-school programs, while two of the schools operated on year-round schedules. In addition, 

half of the schools allocated more time within the existing school day to certain subjects through 

block scheduling (e.g., increasing time on English language arts from 60 to 90 minutes). 
Chapter 5 43

Schools drew upon funds and other resources from federal, state, local, and community sources 

to support before- and after-school programs.

Given the costly nature of providing additional learning opportunities, several schools relied on 

supplemental financial and in-kind resources to carry out these programs. For example, Chelsea 

used extensive funding from two consecutive 21st-Century grants, a district grant, and federal 

supplemental educational services (SES) funds to pay teachers to staff the school program. 

Other schools used a variety of resources to provide extended learning time opportunities for 

students. Lincoln used a charitable foundation grant to provide literacy tutoring to students for 

two hours after school and four hours during the school day, as well as for five weeks during the 

summer. At Cooke, a neighboring community center provided homework help and tutoring to 

students after school. In addition, a regional university provided dance and chess clubs and a 

shop class after school. Two community-based organizations at Swift supported after-school 

tutoring and provided funds to transport students to their neighborhoods after receiving tutoring.

In one case of limited financial resources, Stratford’s principal capitalized on the volunteer 

efforts of teachers to provide after-school tutoring. To encourage volunteers, the principal 

offered teachers an early leave on Fridays and gave points that could be redeemed for classroom 

materials and supplies. 

Some schools used extended learning time to target instruction to struggling students.

Freedom teachers used the results from weekly benchmark assessments in core content areas to 

identify students for participation in an after-school and a Saturday academy. The 20 to 30 

teachers staffing the program provided supplementary instruction in reading, writing, and 

mathematics to over 100 students daily, thereby reinforcing the core instruction. The two schools 

with year-round schedules also took advantage of student “intersession” breaks to target students 

for remedial instruction. For example, Dogwood established a year-round calendar in 2001–02. 

In 2003, the new principal set up intersession instruction to provide remediation classes in 

reading, English language arts, and mathematics. 

Not all extended programs directly reinforced core instruction. For instance, Chelsea focused on 

providing a “safe haven” and structured enrichment activities for students during nonschool 

hours. While Chelsea’s extended program served all students at the school and incorporated 

tutoring with parental involvement and enrichment, it did not directly address classroom 

instruction. 

How One School Used Extended Learning Time to Support School Improvement Efforts

Vignette: Weston Elementary—A Comprehensive Approach to Extending Time

Weston supported student learning beyond the traditional school day. In 2002–03, the principal 

reorganized the school year from a traditional calendar to a year-round schedule to reduce the 

length of summer vacation and the academic losses that typically occur for students over this 

period. Rather than having one long summer break, the new schedule had four three-week breaks 
Chapter 5 44

throughout the year. Teachers also provided instruction for two of these three weeks, except 

during the summer intersession. Teachers noted that the intersession instruction reduced the 

amount of time needed to review what students had been taught prior to going off-track. The 

district’s Title I funds from a budget for remediation instruction provided additional pay for 

teachers. Although participation was optional for teachers and students, most teachers 

participated, and 92 percent of students attended intersession remediation classes.

High-quality instruction was a key element of Weston’s extended learning opportunities. Every 

Wednesday for 16 weeks, students from a local university prepared lessons and taught afterschool classes for third-grade students at Weston as part of their teacher education program 

course work. The university students prepared detailed lesson plans aligned with state standards 

and classroom instruction. With small groups of no more than 12 students, the prospective 

teachers taught two-hour lessons that focused on economics (in the fall) and science (spring). 

Parents and teachers strongly supported the after-school sessions, and students had nearly perfect 

attendance. 

Weston also provided a range of out-of-school academic programs. In 2006–07, the school 

started the Morning Math Club for fourth- and fifth-graders. Approximately 40 students met 

twice per week an hour before school to participate in math remediation classes. Experienced 

teachers led students in hands-on activities that supported math instruction in their classes. In 

addition, 25 students, K–3, participated in a before-school reading club. One teacher noted, “We 

have fourth- and fifth-grade students who come at 7:30 a.m. and don’t leave until 4:30 p.m.. 

Other third-grade students arrive early and don’t leave until 5:00 p.m. because of after-school 

tutoring.”

Targeting interventions to specific students based on need was important to the success of the 

after-school programs. Volunteers from a neighboring church provided one-on-one tutoring to 15 

second-graders identified by the school as most in need of remediation. Other volunteers 

provided one-on-one reading tutoring to primary students. Community volunteers were trained to 

take a running record of a child’s oral reading, follow a teacher-created lesson plan, and 

communicate with the teachers regarding students’ progress. In addition, students scoring just 

above proficient on the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening were selected for a Book 

Buddies Program because, as one respondent indicated, “They’ll benefit the most” [from the 

extra reading support].

Data Use—What We Found

While all schools reported some level of monitoring and using student achievement data, 

variations existed in how and the degree to which data were used. In several schools, school 

leadership played a direct role in facilitating the process by modeling data use for staff, setting 

clear expectations on the use of data, and holding teachers accountable through observations and 

monitoring. In some cases, the initial catalyst for increased data use came from district or state 

requirements (which were often reinforced by the principal). In three schools, Reading First 

requirements for monitoring students’ literacy performance enhanced the school’s existing use of 

data. 
Chapter 5 45

A number of factors appeared to facilitate the process of using data, including a supportive, 

trusting professional culture; teacher buy-in (subsequently bolstered by seeing the positive 

results of using data); consistency of data use across all grades and subjects; and shared 

responsibility for all students. Across all of these components, school leadership played a key 

role in promoting these factors. In addition, professional development from the district, 

consultants, and local universities often strengthened teachers’ comfort levels with using data.

Data collection was frequent, sometimes based on school- or teacher-generated assessments, 

which were complementary to district assessments and tied to the state standards.

More than half of the schools reported regular benchmarking that ranged from weekly to every 

two months. In some cases, schools developed their own assessments to meet the need for 

relevant and frequent data above and beyond district common assessments. 

Generally there were three clear purposes to analyzing achievement data. The first was to 

modify classroom-, grade-, or school-level instruction and provide specific instructional focus.

Lincoln made an innovative instructional change based on achievement data. Using 

disaggregated data, the principal and staff discovered a gap in the performance between girls and 

boys, especially at the middle school level. In response, the school initiated same-sex classes in 

math, science, and language arts in grades 6 through 8. Another school, Cooke, adopted a new 

curriculum after an extensive formal needs assessment that determined that students transferring 

out were frequently behind the other students in the recipient schools. As part of the assessment, 

teachers reviewed data from multiple sources that included results from the state accountability 

test, the district norm-referenced test results, and quarterly benchmark test results, and informal 

classroom unit tests. 

Data were also used to hone instructional focus by identifying weaker areas. For example, at 

Weston—a school with a year-round calendar—any topic on which fewer than 75 percent of 

students demonstrated proficiency became the focus of review during the school’s intercessions. 

A second purpose of using data was to identify and target individual or groups of students for 

remediation or interventions.

Schools often used data to target remedial interventions (commonly provided through afterschool tutoring, Saturday programs, and summer school) or differentiated instruction for 

individuals or groups of students. As discussed above, two schools with year-round calendars 

used achievement data to identify low-performing students for participation in intersession 

remediation. Performance data also determined membership in groups for differentiated 

instruction. Freedom established a formal system for addressing student needs as determined by 

the data. For students who did not meet certain performance levels on the weekly assessments, 

teachers were required to create a remediation plan on how they would re-teach the subjects. The 

teachers submitted the completed plan to the principal and coaches for review.

A third purpose of data use was to monitor individual teachers and help them improve their 

instructional strategies.
Chapter 5 46

A team approach typically supported these efforts. For example, at Freedom grade-level teams 

analyzed scores at multiple levels, including the teacher-level and discussed how to modify 

classroom practices. The principal then reviewed assessments with the school’s teaching coaches 

every week. If there were patterns in a grade in which students failed to meet the benchmarks, 

the grade-level team would discuss how to strengthen instruction to improve student 

performance. Informal monitoring and collaborative troubleshooting among teachers also took 

place at Mill, given to the high level of transparency of the data (see vignette below for more 

details).

At several schools, the school leadership expected all teachers to manage, analyze, and react to 

data, and held teachers accountable for these responsibilities. 

Principals generally conveyed a “whole school effort” message. Distributed leadership 

structures, such as planning committees or research teams, reinforced this message. Mill, 

Stratford, and Martin required all teachers to participate in such teams, which were responsible 

for examining data related to their designated topic and for devising next steps. At Cooke, the 

principal required each teacher to maintain a binder of data to track the progress of individual 

students and the entire class. By default, this type of widespread engagement required data to be 

accessible to all staff and not simply filtered down from the district or school administration. 

Furthermore, school leaders generally coupled this level of staff engagement with accountability. 

For example, principals conducted walk-throughs to ensure that data were displayed, reviewed 

remediation plans and committee meeting minutes, and conducted unannounced checks of data 

books that staff were expected to maintain. 

Data were accessible and transparent to teachers, students, and parents, particularly in the 

classic profile rapid-improvement schools.16

While the level of transparency varied across school sites, there was generally an emphasis on 

conveying performance results in a meaningful manner to staff and the wider community, 

including the students themselves. Respondents in the classic profile rapid-improvement schools 

reported that the transparent use of data played an important role in the dramatic improvements 

in student achievement. The following vignettes illustrate two approaches to using data.

How Two Schools Used Collaborative Decision-making and Transparency to Improve 

Instruction and Student Performance 

Vignette: Freedom Elementary—Team Problem Solving to Support Struggling Students and 

Teachers

Freedom, along with other low-functioning schools in the district, was required to assess student 

progress on a weekly basis. These weekly assessments were tied to the state standards and 

aligned to the school district’s curriculum and pacing guides. When Freedom was no longer 

 16 See page 10 for a definition of this category.
Chapter 5 47

required to conduct weekly performance assessments because of its strong growth, school 

personnel decided to continue the practice because it was viewed as effective. 

The performance assessment process at Freedom involved both teachers and administrators. A 

school assessment team—which was led by the principal and included three teacher leaders who 

were designated as coaches—reviewed the student performance results. The three coaches, each 

assigned to two grades, generated the data sheets and identified any score under the benchmark 

in a report to the principal. If scores were low for a particular classroom, the principal requested 

teachers from that grade to review the week’s instruction for the subject area of concern. The 

principal, for example, would ask a teacher of low-performing students to describe what might 

have gone wrong with the students in science that particular week. The principal then asked all 

teachers in that grade to examine the test scores and provide explanations for the low 

performance. 

The teachers of low-performing students then reviewed their instruction with the whole grade, 

and their colleagues and attending coaches offered suggestions for improvement. At first, 

teachers (particularly those with lower-performing students) tended to be defensive and had 

difficulty troubleshooting. Over time, teachers generally became more comfortable with the 

process, particularly as their student scores began to rise, and readily conversed about alternative 

approaches that might be more effective. 

The notion of shared accountability and problem solving appears to have facilitated this datadriven instructional improvement process. As noted above, when one teacher’s class failed to 

meet the standard, staff in that entire grade was brought to account for the poor performance and 

worked as a team to identify both the problem and solution. The following quote by a teacher 

leader exemplifies this approach:

We had to ensure that teachers realized that if one class failed to pass the test, the 

whole grade failed. So we had to encourage them to share, the ones who did well 

with the ones struggling. And you see teachers doing that now; they ask each 

other for help, the ones who did well support the ones who are struggling.

Another part of this process involved student intervention. Students who were identified as 

struggling were given extra help individually or in small groups either by in-school tutors or by 

their teacher during after-school reinforcement classes or Saturday academy. 

According to respondents, students were highly motivated to work hard and score well on state 

mastery tests. As with teacher performance, students who were underperforming brought down 

not only their own averages, but also the average for the entire class. One teacher described the 

use of performance data from the students’ perspective:

Another way [the use of the data] is helpful to put up the scores each week. The 

children understand the graphs and get mad with their classmates and say, “You 

made our test scores go down, and we can’t let so-and-so beat us.” So they are 

paying more attention to what’s being taught and what’s on the test, and they 
Chapter 5 48

don’t rush through. Those who need special help are given the time they need to 

do well. 

Vignette: Mill Elementary—Transparency and Student Engagement Through Prominently 

Displayed Data Boards

According to respondents, Mill leaders fostered a culture of data use and transparency through 

daily practices that made data on student performance readily visible, rather than hidden or 

secret. A major lynchpin to this culture of transparency was the concept of the “data board.” The 

principal set the example early on. Teachers recalled being aware since 2001–02 that the 

principal was reviewing the data and making data boards that displayed schoolwide goals and 

achievement. Although the district later required all of its schools to have data boards, the Mill 

principal several years earlier had adopted and enhanced this concept (which another school in 

the district had originated).

In 2003–04, the principal required all grades and classrooms to prominently display data boards 

in the school hallways. The boards tracked the progress of each class and individual students and 

explained the standards in student-friendly ways. Respondents said the principal set clear 

expectations up-front, using her schoolwide data board as an example and specifying that the 

grade-level and classroom boards be highly visual (e.g., graphs), make inferences about the data 

(“What does the graph mean?”), and describe next steps and strategies (the “so what” factor). 

The principal considered the last element (the “so what”) to be the most important.

In Mill’s early days of using data boards, teachers in general were not very tech-savvy, according 

to respondents. As a result, teachers created the graphs out of construction paper, crayons, and 

markers. The school’s technology team later polished this process, training teachers how to

create graphs on computers. Yet, according to respondents, how the graphs looked was 

secondary to the intent of using data to drive instructional decisions. The principal remarked that 

it would have been easier if she had simply required teachers to post a graph on a wall, but she 

emphasized using the data as a tool in the continuous improvement process. She did not want the 

boards to be a “dog and pony show”—rather, each board had to be meaningful for some kind of 

improvement.

Various supports were in place to facilitate Mill’s continuous improvement process. First, since 

2002–03, the school had a data team comprising grade-level representatives. The team gathered 

and distributed data on academic performance throughout the school to facilitate shared 

expectations and a sense of widespread accountability. The team helped teachers collect data and 

determine which data were important to include on the data boards. The principal believed the 

strategy of using data boards would not have been as successful without the data team in place. 

Second, the data team took questions, such as, “What the data mean?” (e.g., “What do we do 

about it?”) to the instructional strategy team, a cross-grade team that helped grade levels identify 

and implement instructional strategies to address weaknesses identified by the data.

In addition to the data and instructional strategy teams, a school-based consultant assisted 

teachers by holding grade-level meetings to discuss data. A district-based consultant supported 

the school administration by working with principals on data-based decision-making.
Chapter 5 49

Each teacher at Mill identified the needs of his or her class based on the existing data and was 

given discretion to create data boards that were relevant to those needs. While the principal did 

not tell the teachers what data to use, she insisted that the data be current. During the process of 

using data boards, Mill staff realized that some of the existing assessments did not provide the 

information necessary to guide the instructional decisions they needed to make. Consequently, 

school leaders created an assessment team to develop the school’s own ongoing assessments that 

could help the school address the question, “What do we need to know [to make instructional 

decisions]?”

Student engagement was an important element of data board implementation. According to 

respondents, in 2004-05, once the teachers were accustomed to the practice, students themselves 

contributed to the data boards. Students regularly tracked their own progress (against an “aim 

line” that tracked their current status regarding goals) and created action plans that specified their 

own personal learning goals and identified areas for them to strengthen and master. As a first 

step, the teachers at each grade level created forms for the students to help them understand and 

describe their own data and create an action plan.

One respondent explained that these student-created action plans reinforced a common 

understanding and generated dialogue about what students needed to work on. Even kindergarten 

students had basic plans. Students became familiar with standards and other terminology, and 

understood the level at which they were reading. A staff survey conducted in 2004–05 reported 

that teachers believed 98 percent of the students could interpret their own data. Some of the 

posted student-level graphs and plans used numbers to identify students, while others had student 

names. The principal noted that parents never expressed concern to her regarding the 

identification of students: “It’s a competition with themselves, and students enjoy seeing their 

progress.”

The school administration expected all teachers across all subjects, including music and gym, to 

use data boards, and students came to expect this widespread use. For example, respondents 

related stories of how students checked the boards as they walked into class and insisted that 

teachers update the progress charts as soon as possible after a test. New teachers noted that 

students “pushed back” if their teacher was not doing what their other teachers were doing in this 

regard.

The widespread visibility of data also contributed to informal monitoring among grade-level 

teachers at Mill. Respondents noted that variation in performance (as displayed by the boards) 

could suggest that teachers were not implementing the instructional strategies with fidelity. 

Teachers were aware when they or their colleagues had lower scores, and, as such, worked to 

identify problems and support the teachers with lower performance. For instance, one new 

teacher with lower math scores realized that her instruction might have been lacking, so she 

asked a colleague to observe her class. As a result, she and her colleague determined that her 

math review was not as thorough as it needed to be. 

Respondents indicated that a noncompetitive, supportive, professional atmosphere and teacher 

collegiality were important to the success of data transparency. They described a strong 
Chapter 5 50

expectation that staff support each other without negativity or penalty. Teachers pointed out that, 

while the school was competitive with other schools, there was no competition within the school 

among teachers. A common phrase during the teacher interviews was: “We all sink, or we all 

swim.” The principal noted that she felt strongly that staff growth was rooted in having 

opportunities to take risks in a supportive environment. One new teacher remarked, “Trial and 

error are definitely okay here. We get support for our growth period as teachers.”

When asked directly about teachers’ possible concerns about the public display of how their 

classes were performing, the principal said there never had been any such concerns. She 

attributed this to the fact that teachers themselves posted their own data, and the focus was on 

improving instruction. The administration did not use the boards as a punitive monitoring tool of 

individual teachers, she said. It also helped, she explained, that the entire grade level takes 

ownership of students, rather than student performance being the sole responsibility of individual 

teachers.

Respondents also indicated that teachers had grown tired of being the lowest-performing school 

in the district and were, as a result, receptive to change, which facilitated the shift to a culture of 

data transparency. Furthermore, once the school started making gains in achievement, staff 

bought into this strategy quickly.

Support For Staff—What We Found

Respondents from nine of the 11 sites described using supplemental coaches and consultants in 

some manner over the past five years, with respondents from six of the sites citing access to two 

or more consultants at one time. Respondents from several sites emphasized the importance of 

consultants and coaches working collaboratively with staff, earning their respect and trust, and 

developing relationships with staff.

Support ranged from the use of nationally known experts to a much heavier reliance on local 

staff. 

While most sites appeared to rely on local expertise, the external consultants provided by one 

district included national leaders in school reform. These consultants generally provided support 

to school administrators and districtwide teacher training on specific topics. 

The intensity of these services varied in terms of the number of personnel and the frequency of 

support. 

Different sites used different numbers and combinations of consultants and coaches. As 

mentioned above, six of the sites described working with multiple consultants and coaches at one 

time. The pattern of use did not seem related to schools with different achievement patterns (i.e., 

rapid-improvement or slow-and-steady).17

 22See page 10 for a definition of this category.
Chapter 5 51

According to Chelsea respondents, a mathematics coach, two literacy coaches, and two English 

learner specialists provided support to the school. An example of multilayered support, Mill 

supplemented its district-level consultants with a close and long-term relationship with a schoolbased consultant who supported the school from 2001 to 2007. One site indicated much more 

casual reliance on this kind of support, with a respondent commenting, “When we ask, the 

regional agency sends some folks out.” At another school, respondents did not mention 

consultants or coaches as a major component of their efforts over the past several years. 

How One School Used Consultants and Coaches to Support Teachers in Improving 

Instruction

Vignette: Swift Middle School—Using a Regional Consultant and Teacher Leaders to Roll Out 

Reforms

Swift respondents attributed a large part of the school’s slow-and-steady progress to the presence 

of a core of experienced instructional leaders and the assistance of a school improvement 

consultant from a regional education agency. The state required the school to use a consultant as 

a result of its Needs Improvement status. The regional consultant facilitated the development and 

implementation of the school improvement plan, helped prioritize content standards to better 

meet the state assessment requirements, and provided professional development in instructional 

best practices. 

The school began developing its own teacher leaders with the creation in 2002 of a design team, 

which consisted of the principal, two teachers from each grade level, one special education 

teacher, and the school improvement specialist. For this team, the principal selected teachers 

whom he had observed to be highly respected in the school. School respondents noted that the 

principal did not simply choose the most experienced teachers or those who were department 

chairs but carefully selected staff that he felt were natural leaders and who would be capable of 

training their peers in instructional best strategies.

The regional consultant trained the design team once a month in curriculum alignment and 

instructional best practices, such as writing “essential questions” or lesson objectives on the 

board every day, and using graphic organizers in their classrooms. After being trained, the design 

team implemented the best practices in their classrooms for two to four weeks and then used 

common planning time to train the other teachers on both their grade-level “study” teams and in 

content teams, which met every other week. Once a week, during their common planning time in 

content and grade-level teams, teachers had the opportunity to give feedback on each strategy 

and share successes and individual variations. The manner in which this process was rolled out to 

teachers through the highly respected teacher leadership team appears to have contributed to the 

overall acceptance and enthusiasm with which the best practices were implemented and 

improved upon throughout the school. 

Although the information initially came from an outside source—the regional consultant—the 

teachers indicated that they felt a strong sense of ownership and pride in the success of the 

strategies. A number of factors may have contributed to this sense of ownership:
Chapter 5 52

• The teachers had worked with the regional consultant previously, so they knew and 

accepted her.

• The well-respected principal actively endorsed the consultant.

• The design team pretested the reforms in their classrooms prior to recommending 

the practices to their colleagues, and they offered advice and support to the other 

teachers throughout the year. 

• Teachers seemed to appreciate the flexibility to experiment with the reforms and 

adjust them to be most effective in their own classes.

The regional consultant also helped the design team align and prioritize their content standards. 

One teacher pointed out that it would have taken 20 years to teach students the full set of 

required standards. The design team sorted the standards into three categories: essential 

objectives, important objectives, and supplemental objectives. Teachers stated that this 

prioritizing allowed them to simplify their pacing guide and resulted in better instructional 

coordination throughout the school. This alignment of standards also facilitated instructional 

oversight. When administrators, members of the design team, and the regional consultant did 

monitoring walk-throughs, teachers in different classrooms would be teaching similar material 

on any given day of the week. 

The regional consultant’s work ended after the two years during which the school was receiving 

additional school improvement funds for being in Year 1 Improvement status. However, due to 

the capacity-building nature of the regional consultant’s training, the continued presence of the 

strong design team, and additional professional development opportunities that the district 

provided to teachers, Swift managed to sustain its steady progress.

Respondents described the design team as cohesive and well-trained, and it steadily took over the 

instructional management of the school. All of the teachers on the original design team were still 

at Swift as of 2007–08. The school’s distributed leadership structure appears to have contributed 

to the sustainability of reforms. When the principal left after the 2005–06 school year, the design 

team members continued to lead and run the school with seemingly little guidance from the new 

principal. One member of the design team later became the assistant principal at the school. 
Chapter 6 53

CHAPTER 6: EXTERNAL SUPPORT

In addition to actions at the school level, districts, states, and the federal government can play an 

important role in stimulating both rapid-improvement and more incremental reform efforts. 

Accountability requirements can push schools to change and additional resources can support 

these efforts. School improvement literature suggests that school change often is stimulated and 

supported through district, state and federal efforts, although schools often have difficulty 

sustaining improvement after outside resources disappear (Berends et al., 2001). More recent 

literature suggests that schools can withstand the loss of outside resources or other singular risk 

events but have difficulty only when faced with multiple risk factors, including, among others, 

loss of funding and turnover of staff or leadership (Taylor, 2006). 

Multilayered Reform Context—District, State, and Federal Role

Efforts to turn schools around are embedded in district, state, and federal systemic reform and 

accountability environments. Efforts to improve student outcomes often are required of lowperforming schools, and funding sometimes accompanies these requirements. Districts have been 

active in fostering reform efforts (e.g., Spillane and Thompson, 1997), and the federal 

government and states have provided Title I funds and other grants targeted toward school 

improvement. These factors played a role in several of the study schools.

District, State, and Federal Role—What We Found

Respondents in about half of the study schools, both rapid-improvement and slow-and-steady, 

cited district support, guidance, and assistance as being instrumental in their success.18 While 

respondents were somewhat less likely to mention states and the federal government as 

specifically and directly affecting local reform, the overall accountability context did appear to 

have an important motivating effect at the local level. Respondents noted the pressure of chronic 

low performance, as determined by federal and state accountability measures, as stimulating 

change. Freedom, Weston, Dogwood, and Swift received substantial state support.

While the primary form of support was financial, respondents provided examples of in-kind 

assistance, predominantly from the districts. In-kind assistance was generally in the form of 

consultation and professional development for instructional coaches and teachers. In some cases, 

schools and districts used funding to purchase assistance directly from state and private agencies 

as noted in Swift, Mill, and Stratford. Other forms of district support appeared more subtle, such 

as assigning experienced principals with the explicit purpose of turning the school around or 

guiding reform efforts by establishing consistent expectations.

Fiscal resources from multiple sources—state, federal, and local—helped schools undertake 

many improvement efforts.

All of the schools in this study reported obtaining and using additional resources, beyond their 

CSR grant, to support or sustain their improvement efforts. Schools, often with the support of 

 18 See page 10 for a definition of this category.
Chapter 6 54

their districts, pursued a variety of grants to fund school improvement efforts. In addition to 

federal Title I funds, major sources of funding for these schools included federal competitive 

grants. Walker, Mill, and Stratford received Reading First; Chelsea and Freedom received 21st 

Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) or GEAR UP grants. Walker, Freedom, 

Weston, Dogwood, and Swift, designated as Needs Improvement under NCLB, received 

supplemental funds. In addition to providing fiscal resources to enable new or ongoing strategies, 

these grants often guided and provided focus to the reform efforts by mandating the use of funds 

and monitoring of programs.

In a number of schools, overlapping grants helped to maintain support for school improvement 

efforts. For example, Chelsea had six years of funding (2001 to 2007) from both the 21st CCLC 

program and the district for before- and after-school programs, which overlapped with the 

school’s CSR and Reading First grants. From 2003 to 2006, Freedom received supplemental 

funding under its state accountability system, which coincided with a 21st CCLC grant. 

Support also came in the form of accountability, external pressure, and establishing consistent 

expectations.

Respondents at Weston said a major impetus for change had been external pressure and threat of 

sanctions from the state. State representatives visited the school and threatened to fire teachers if 

student achievement did not improve. Teachers acknowledged that the process was painful but 

necessary. As one teacher described, “It put a new light in my head—you don’t just go in, close 

the classroom door, and do whatever you want.”

At Dogwood, the district supported reform efforts by aligning the curriculum and instruction 

with state assessments. This drive for consistency helped to focus instruction. As one teacher 

commented, “The biggest thing that the district did was to align the curriculum. Before, you 

taught what you felt like teaching.” While another district’s philosophy was to empower 

principals to take risks, it established a list of “nonnegotiable” policies to avoid spending 

resources on reinventing something that already worked and to create consistency across the 

district to cope with student mobility.

How a District and State Assisted One School in Its Improvement Efforts

Vignette: Swift Middle School—Strategically Using District and State Funds

Respondents at Swift attributed much of their academic progress to district and state support in 

developing and implementing its school improvement program. Respondents credited the district 

for monitoring and supporting all schools in Needs Improvement status in a number of ways, 

including providing school improvement consultants, offering professional development 

opportunities, and conducting needs assessments.

The district required all schools in Year 1 Improvement status to use a school improvement 

consultant from a regional agency. Respondents also said the district contributed to the school’s 

success by carefully selecting a principal who could effectively manage and stabilize the school. 

The district provided support in the principal’s efforts to eliminate weaker teachers who were not 
Chapter 6 55

inclined to participate in the school’s reform efforts. Finally, the district supported a significant 

amount of professional development, based upon an annual districtwide needs assessment of 

student data and surveys of school staff and parents.

After the school failed to make AYP for two years, the state allocated additional federal funding 

to help the school implement its plan and to support the school’s improvement process. These 

funds supplemented the school’s professional development activities and supported a school 

improvement specialist. This specialist position was funded until the school had made AYP for 

two years. Subsequently, the state provided funding for a graduation coach, who took over some 

of the functions previously provided by the school improvement specialist.

Although the district continued to provide support after Swift exited its Needs Improvement 

status, the school no longer received supplemental school improvement funds. While the loss of 

funding created challenges in continuing reforms, the school used existing funds strategically 

and relied heavily on its strong group of leader teachers to continue to push the school forward.

Chapter 7 57

CHAPTER 7: SUSTAINING RAPID AND DRAMATIC SCHOOL 

IMPROVEMENT 

Sustainability—What We Found

Schools face challenges in sustaining their improvement strategies and achievement gains. Many 

schools in our study found ways to replace lost resources, and some have succeeded in 

institutionalizing improved instructional practices. However, many schools continue to face 

environments that make sustaining student achievement gains an ongoing challenge.

While all the schools included in this study demonstrated some level of achievement growth 

during a short time frame, not all schools sustained these gains. In fact, Cooke and Walker, 

originally selected for showing rapid gains, experienced considerable achievement declines in 

later years of the study and fell well below their respective state and district average performance 

in both reading and math. While these were the most striking examples, other schools also 

experienced some periods of decline during the study’s time frame. 

Many schools operated in fluctuating environments—reflected in reduction in available 

resources, high levels of student mobility, changes in student demographics, and staff turnover—

that created challenges in sustaining achievement growth.

Some schools attributed their achievement gains in part to the actions of, and resources provided 

by, districts, states, and the federal government. When this was the case, respondents expressed 

concerns about the potential loss of district or state support. 

For example, the state provided supplemental school improvement funding to Swift when it 

entered Needs Improvement status, and the state withdrew the funding just two years later when 

the school exited this status.19 As a result, there were cutbacks in several areas, such as the 

school improvement specialist position and work with special education students. Freedom 

expected to face the same situation at the end of both its Needs Improvement state grant and 21st 

Century funds. While Freedom staff expressed concerns about the fact that improving 

achievement would reduce the school’s funding, we found no evidence that the school leaders 

had looked at their resources and developed a sustainability plan. 

In addition, respondents noted that efforts to sustain gains in achievement also were complicated 

by changing student demographics, and teacher and student turnover, among other factors. 

Changes in the student population may influence achievement trends perhaps in part because 

teachers may not be prepared to accommodate students’ needs when the student population 

becomes more challenging. The principal at Stratford described such a shift as a specific 

challenge when the percentage of students receiving free and reduced-price lunches increased by 

17 percent over a five-year period. The high levels of student mobility reported by the schools 

(generally 30 percent of the student population) also created difficulties in showing and 

sustaining growth. In addition, student mobility posed a challenge to some of the study schools 

 19 Needs Improvement and Restructuring status are used generically in this report. Needs Improvement includes 

status includes Year 1 Improvement, Year 2 Improvement, and Corrective Action. Restructuring status includes 

Restructuring, Planning and Restructuring, and Implementation.
Chapter 7 58

in their efforts to maintain a culture of high expectations and an orderly learning environment. 

As the principal at Mill stated, “What is acceptable in one school is not acceptable [here], and it 

takes effort and time to acclimatize new students to these expectations.”

Respondents also identified staff turnover, both voluntary and involuntary, as an impediment to 

sustaining academic achievement. Walker consistently experienced high turnover in staff as 

teachers sought to move from this charter school to regular, higher paying, tenure-track positions 

in the local public school district. Stratford also reported that nearly half of the teaching staff 

were new to the school in 2004–05, largely due to a new school opening up in the district. In 

addition, three-fourths of these new teachers were in their first year of teaching. Many new and 

inexperienced staff created challenges, particularly given Stratford’s high-need student 

population. As described by a district respondent, “When you’re working with new teachers, 

they take about three years to get up to par for working with children of poverty.” 

Most schools developed strategies to alleviate these fluctuations in resources, such as seeking 

supplemental fiscal resources to replace lost funds and building expertise among staff to reduce 

reliance upon external support. 

Schools generally had an influx of resources over several years at a time. As grant funding 

streams ended, eight of the schools studied were able to rely on new funding streams. In some of 

these cases, it appears that the schools or their districts anticipated the loss of funding and 

pursued other grants.

Five schools used their funds and other resources in ways that mitigated future loss of funding. 

They focused on enhancing the knowledge and skills of their staff through professional 

development or by purchasing or developing materials and instructional programs that would 

remain in place once funding ended. Lincoln’s principal noted that she was reluctant to seek 

grants unless she could sustain the effort after the grant ended, so she focused on securing grants 

that would build staff skills to outlive the life of the grant. 

Several schools made themselves less reliant on funding and external assistance by providing 

extensive professional development to their teachers and by building teacher leaders through 

distributed leadership opportunities. At Stratford, Reading First originally funded coaches, then 

limited Title I funds paid for these coaches, and by the end of our study, the school was 

attempting to create teacher leaders in the event it could not continue to afford coaches in the 

future. Teachers mentioned that they were working on a “gradual release” of reliance on external 

funds by training teachers to the point in which coaches would no longer be needed. At Swift, 

regional consultants trained a selected group of teacher leaders on instructional practices and on 

training other teachers in those strategies. Near the end of our study, the school lost its school 

improvement specialist due to lack of funding. However, much of the implementation of the 

instructional practices had become institutionalized. 

A few schools strengthened the orientation of new staff. At both Mill and Stratford, teachers 

participated in a new teacher academy. Swift instituted a mentor system that assigned new 

teachers to an experienced member of the staff to help integrate and acculturate the new teachers 

to the school.
Chapter 7 59

How One School Changed Its Professional Development Model to Address Sustainability 

Concerns

Vignette: Mill Elementary—Instilling a “Sense of Urgency” Among New and Veteran Staff

Several factors played a role in enabling Mill to sustain its initial improvement. The principal 

cited the consistency in the school’s focus on reading, math, and attendance as being critical to 

facilitating and sustaining its reforms. School leaders anchored everything that the school did—

from instructional strategies to professional development—to those foci in some way. 

Respondents indicated that a broad-based culture of shared leadership, knowledge, and 

responsibility was perhaps most critical to the sustainability of the school’s improvements. A 

quote from an assistant superintendent in the school’s application for a prestigious award 

captures the pervasive nature of the school’s reforms: “A teacher or principal could leave, and 

the change would still occur because it is now engrained in the system.” 

After five years of sustaining its high performance, one of the prominent challenges for Mill was 

maintaining a “sense of urgency” among staff. This issue was particularly relevant for newer 

staff because many teachers started at Mill well after the school went from the “bottom of the 

bucket” to being one of the highest performers. Many of these newer teachers may not have been 

fully cognizant of the school’s previous history or the importance of particular strategies. The 

principal remarked that the challenge was ensuring that new leaders understand the “Mill story”: 

“Without knowing where we had been, new leaders will not understand how to stay where we 

are,” she said. There appeared to be widespread awareness and recognition among the school 

respondents that the staff cannot become complacent, despite the school’s success. Indeed, one 

of the inquiry questions in the school’s improvement plan was, “How do we instill in teachers 

new to Mill our sense of urgency and commitment to continual student improvement?”

During walk-throughs, the principal found that strategies that she considered important were not 

necessarily being implemented across the board. She remarked, “You’re not going to have the 

sustained growth if people are not using the techniques that you know are research-based and 

make a difference.”

To address this concern, the school introduced teacher-led professional development in 2007–08 

to instill urgency and reinforce fidelity of classroom practices. This approach was a major 

departure from prior years, in which external consultants provided most professional 

development. The district released a number of staff development days to all schools, which 

helped facilitate Mill’s new approach to professional development. Under this approach, all 

teachers were provided three sessions each Monday, and participants chose one session to attend, 

allowing them to prioritize their own needs. Surveys were used to determine areas of expertise 

and the areas teachers would like to know more about.

In addition to providing frequent and relevant professional development and facilitating 

ownership of reforms, this “teachers-teaching-teachers” approach was designed to develop inhouse expertise, build teacher leaders, continue to pressure veteran staff by challenging them 

with new ideas, and continually expose new staff to Mill’s strategies and values. According to a 

teacher respondent, the in-house structure “helped with understanding why change is needed.” 
Chapter 7 60

This approach also provided a means to sustain reform in the event that the coaches are no longer 

available because, as one respondent explained, “Every teacher here has become a trainer.”

This model also helped ensure consistency and fidelity of implementation because it involved all 

staff. The principal would recommend individual teachers to attend specific sessions that would 

address her implementation concerns. As a respondent described, “We needed to slow down a bit 

and make sure the reforms are working and being implemented.” Provided to all staff, the 

sessions stressed the urgency and importance that all teachers, veteran and new alike, were 

“doing the little things that matter.”
Chapter 8 61

CHAPTER 8: LESSONS LEARNED FROM STUDYING DRAMATIC 

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 

Much of the recent literature on turning around the achievement of low-performing schools has 

been grounded in the proposition that schools could improve their performance quickly as some 

businesses have. Empirical studies have focused on case descriptions of low-performing schools 

that improved, offering “existence proofs” that schools can turnaround the academic 

achievement of their students in a short period of time (Herman et al., 2008). 

This study adds to the literature by systematically identifying low-performing schools that 

dramatically improved their achievement and describing the actions that appear to have been 

related to those achievement patterns. In each of these efforts—identifying schools and 

describing what they did—the study encountered challenges that will likely face future studies of 

this kind on low-performing schools that improved. These challenges, in turn, have implications 

for future research, raising questions regarding what we really want to know about the 

phenomenon of dramatic school improvement and how to design studies to obtain that 

knowledge. 

Challenges in Identifying Schools for Study 

This study had difficulty using empirical criteria to select sample schools for study based on the 

achievement of their students. The inadequacies of available national data on school performance 

impeded our efforts to apply empirical criteria and to interpret the observed achievement trends. 

In addition, we grappled with how competing demographic factors, other than actions taken by 

school leaders and staff, might have accounted for improved student performance in the selected 

schools. 

How to Select Rapid and Dramatic Improvement Schools Based on Student 

Achievement Patterns

Based on available evidence from case studies, as well as expert opinion, the recent Institute of 

Education Sciences (IES) practice guide, Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools 

(Herman et al., 2008), defined turnaround schools as follows:

First, they began as chronically poor performers—with a high proportion of their students 

(generally 20 percent or more) failing to meet state standards of proficiency in mathematics or 

reading as defined under NCLB over two or more consecutive years.

Second, turnaround schools, as defined by the IES expert panel, showed substantial gains in 

student achievement in a short time (no more than three years). Examples of substantial gains in 

achievement are reducing by at least 10 percentage points the proportion of students failing to 

meet state standards for proficiency in mathematics or reading, showing similarly large 

improvements in other measures of academic performance (such as lowering the dropout rate by 

10 percentage points or more), or improving overall performance on standardized mathematics 

or reading tests by an average of 10 percentage points (or about 0.25 standard deviations). 
Chapter 8 62

This definition seems precise, but operationalizing it with reliable and valid metrics presents 

several major challenges. While this study employed different criteria to identify schools across 

the nation, it encountered issues, described below, that would similarly affect studies using the 

definition spelled out in the IES practice guide. 

One challenge in selecting sites across the nation for our study was the absence of up-to-date 

national data on student achievement. Moreover, reliable estimates of school-level performance 

should ideally be derived from longitudinal, student-level data to ameliorate problems inherent in 

using percent proficient school-level calculations through the use of robust student growth curve 

models. This issue is of particular importance in schools that experience high levels of student 

mobility, which was the case at several of the schools in our study.20

As discussed earlier, we were constrained by having a national data set that was both out-of-date 

and provided achievement information only at the school level. Because the school-level data 

available from the National Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Score Database 

(NLSLSASD) were not updated, we needed to gather data from individual states, which varied in 

its completeness and timliness. While one might reasonably expect future updates to national 

school-level data sets such as the NLSLSASD, it seems unlikely that a comparable national 

database of student-level data will be compiled in the near future. 

Another complication in identifying and selecting sample schools had to do with the study’s time 

period. Restricting our search for schools in the available database, we somewhat arbitrarily 

selected the time period for this study. Schools, however, have achievement trajectories 

independent of the exigencies of education research. Other schools than those in our study likely 

improved dramatically much earlier, during a time period not captured by our database or 

selection criteria. Still other schools might have started on an improved trajectory toward the end 

of the study’s time period. 

A final challenge faced by this study may have been largely mitigated in recent years as NCLB

testing requirements have been implemented more widely. We were constrained to examining 

data from a single grade level because the majority of states were only testing one elementary 

grade and one middle grade during the baseline period of our data collection. Better approaches 

that combine data from multiple grade levels and across multiple subjects will be more feasible 

as states continue to implement reading and mathematics assessments in all grades from 3 

through 8, as required by NCLB, and as state data systems improve. An increasing number of 

 20 There are several other limitations to using percent proficient as the criterion for sample school selection. First, 

with any proficiency standard, there are likely to be substantial cohort effects, as students one year may be more or 

less capable than students the next, independent of the quality of their school experience. Second, a proficiency 

standard is susceptible to erroneous interpretation because it sets a fixed (and arbitrary) standard. Small changes 

(both improvements and declines) may appear more substantively significant than they really are. For example, 

imagine that a large number of fourth-grade students score just below proficient on a state reading assessment. A 

small improvement the next year in fourth-grade reading scores would appear to be a major improvement in school 

performance, even though substantively and statistically, it may really only be measurement error from year to year, 

or a cohort effect, or just a small improvement. Finally, this definition of school improvement says nothing about 

reduction in achievement gaps, a goal that is central to NCLB. One could imagine a school that had drastically 

reduced the gap between white students and students of color. This substantial accomplishment would not be 

captured by the criterion of percent proficient.
Chapter 8 63

states are developing data systems that allow longitudinally linked, student-level data, which 

should assist in more accurately studying achievement trends.

Competing Interpretations of Achievement Patterns

As raised in Chapter 1, several factors complicated our identification of both rapid-improvement 

and slow-and-steady schools. Shifting student populations and enrollment changes at some 

schools made it difficult to determine whether achievement patterns were related to schoolspecific efforts. 

To explain their school’s improved performance, respondents in both rapid-improvement and 

slow-and-steady schools generally pointed to what the school had done to bring about 

improvements. But alternative factors like changes in the composition of the student body may 

have accounted for increased student achievement, at least in part. In our initial school selection 

process, we eliminated sites that had a change greater than 15 percent in any year in the number 

of students receiving free and reduced-price lunches or in composing any single ethnic group. 

Nonetheless, there were important, subsequent changes in the student population in about half of 

the 11 case study sites—changes that could have affected trends in student performance over 

time. Exhibit 5 summarizes these student demographic factors in both the rapid-improvement 

and slow-and-steady schools included in this study.

Exhibit 5

Student Demographic Factors That Might Have Affected Changes in Achievement 

Name

Freedom • Enrolled ~150 students from similar neighboring school that closed

• Students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch increased from 82 percent in 

2001–02 to 97 percent in 2006–07

Mill • Enrollment increased by 100+ students in a single year due to redistricting 

• Gradual phase-out of busing in students from inner-city schools

Weston • Enrollment declined from 245 in 2001–02 to 175 in 2006–07

• Formerly a magnet school for the arts

Chelsea • Gradual phase-out of busing in students

• Enrollment declined from 571 in 2001–02 to 269 in 2006–07

• Math and science cluster school

Dogwood No significant demographic changes reported

Stratford • Students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch increased from 69 percent in 

2001–02 to 81 percent in 2006–07

• Enrollment increased by 100+ students in a single year due to redistricting 

• Served as a cluster program for English learners in the district

• Gradual phase out of busing in students from inner-city schools

Cooke • African-American students increased from 49 percent in 2001–02 to 56 percent in 

2006–07

• Hispanic students increased from 3 percent in 2001–02 to 11 percent in 2006–07

Walker • Enrollment declined from 313 in 2002–03 to 255 in 2006–07

• Converted from a religious private school to a charter school 

Lincoln No significant demographic changes reported

Martin • African-American students more than doubled from 17 percent in 2001–02 to 38 

percent in 2006–07

• Hispanic students more than quadrupled from 2 percent in 2001–02 to 13 percent 

in 2006–07

Swift No significant demographic changes reported
Chapter 8 64

In some cases, factors such as lower enrollment or less challenging student needs over time may 

have played a role in increased student achievement. For example, Chelsea’s enrollment declined 

by more than half over a five-year period, from 571 students in 2001–02 to 269 in 2006–07. 

Moreover, the largest decrease (-28 percent) occurred the year preceding the school’s peak in 

achievement (2003–04). Although the percentage of students in poverty was fairly constant 

throughout this time span (2001–07), school respondents noted that the demographics of the 

neighborhood changed, with an influx of middle class families without children and an exodus of 

low-income families. At Weston, the student population also declined almost 29 percent, from 

245 in 2001–02 to 175 in 2006–07. 

Busing of students from other neighborhoods was being phased out in both Mill and Chelsea 

during the study timeframe. Teacher respondents at Chelsea attributed the lower test scores prior 

to its improvement period in 2004 to student busing. They believed that the principals at other 

schools had been sending students with achievement or disciplinary problems to Chelsea. Mill’s 

increase in student achievement occurred several years before busing ended, but the 

accompanying decline in ethnic diversity might have contributed to sustaining the school’s 

gains.21

On the other hand, some schools improved in student performance over time despite 

considerable turnover in students or evidence of an increasingly challenging student population. 

Martin reported that one-third of its students turned over on a yearly basis. Furthermore, its 

percentage of minority students increased from about 25 percent to more than 50 percent over 

the five years of our study. Freedom, in another particularly striking example, sustained its 

academic gains despite reporting that it absorbed in a single year approximately 150 students 

from a neighboring school that had closed. In addition, students receiving free and reduced-price 

lunches increased from 82 percent in 2001–02 to 97 percent in 2006–07.

Challenges in Describing Activities 

The schools studied posed unique challenges for retrospective data collection. Collecting data 

from respondents on events that occurred several years earlier could have been hindered by gaps 

in memory, rationalizing earlier actions in light of later outcomes, and the sheer complexity of 

improvement efforts. 

Our study relied on data from interview and focus group respondents whom we asked to describe 

and reflect upon activities that occurred two, three, or, in some cases, more years earlier. Some 

schools had experienced considerable turnover in teaching or administrative staff. Even when 

staffs were stable, respondents were not always certain of the timing and details of particular 

reform strategies. In one school, the principal documented events in great detail over several 

years. Unfortunately, this was the exception rather than the rule—most schools in our study 

rarely documented the details of their improvement efforts.

 21 Three of the rural schools in our study appeared to have relatively more student stability. These tended to be 

smaller communities, often with only one school at a given level. The majority of schools studied, however, were in 

more urban settings. Here, student transience and school choice seemed more prevalent. 
Chapter 8 65

Furthermore, retrospective data collection can be subject to an additional source of error. In 

hindsight, some respondents may tend to rationalize their actions or impose—after the fact—

logic or order to their behavior that was not originally there. Details of other actions that may 

suggest different interpretations may be forgotten selectively, if unintentionally. This process is 

not just one of individuals forgetting dates, names, and facts. It is a collective process. As school 

staff interact with one another, they influence each other’s perceptions. The result is frequently a 

shared interpretation or story about what has happened and to what effect. This story may be 

strongly held by a majority of the staff but may have been based on misconceptions either of 

events or of their relationship to observed outcomes.

Finally, the sheer complexity of school improvement efforts made it difficult to obtain a 

complete picture of what occurred in these schools. Each of the study schools engaged in unique, 

complex, and multifaceted improvement efforts. As noted earlier, school improvement literature 

often identify particular factors, such as the critical role of school leadership or data-based 

decision-making, to explain substantial gains in student achievement. We discuss such factors in 

this report as well. However, these factors appeared to overlap and interact in complex ways in 

these sites. 

The complexity of reform efforts, as well as the challenges of retrospective data collection, might 

account for some of the patterns displayed in Exhibit 4 in Chapter 2. In many cases, the data did 

not allow us to determine whether key school characteristics were perceived to have been related 

positively or negatively or unrelated at all to patterns of improvement in student achievement 

(indicated by “0” in Exhibit 4, Chapter 2). As mentioned previously, faulty and incomplete 

memories might have been one explanation for these gaps. Different respondents attributed their 

schools’ academic improvement to different combinations of factors, adding to the difficulty of 

collecting data and understanding what had occurred in the schools.

Implications for Future Research

As described above, this study faced challenges identifying dramatically improving schools, 

describing what occurred at the schools before and during the time that the achievement 

improved, and explaining the relationship between the actions taken and the student outcomes 

(and eliminating competing explanations of the achievement patterns). Like other studies of 

school improvement more generally, this was a study of “outlier” schools that “beat the odds.” 

While this study attempted to use empirical criteria to select sample schools initially, it 

encountered methodological challenges shared by other small-scale, retrospective case studies of 

outlier school improvement. The challenges have implications for future research. 

Ongoing, current databases documenting patterns of student achievement would help 

researchers to identify low-performing schools that improved.

Having ongoing, universal or widespread, current databases of school activities and of student 

outcomes over several years would allow researchers to identify schools that fit school 

improvement criteria. Even more important, such data would allow researchers to determine 

whether the increases at the school level exceeded district or state averages, enabling researchers 

to analyze relative growth of achievement at the school, district, and state levels. Available 
Chapter 8 66

ongoing data about large numbers of schools over a longer time frame also would help examine 

patterns of activities undertaken in schools that show rapid-improvements in student outcomes 

and comparable schools that do not. Such important comparisons often are missing from 

examinations of schools that beat the odds, making it difficult to determine whether schools 

attempting similar reforms are less successful, and why. Ongoing data about student achievement 

also would help avoid problems associated with studies that are limited to arbitrary time periods. 

Real-time documentation of reform efforts would eliminate the weaknesses of retrospective data 

collection.

In order to understand the implementation of reforms, descriptive information should be 

collected before student outcomes are known. Only then can researchers be sure that the success 

(or failure) of a school to dramatically increase student achievement has not colored respondents’ 

memories of events and attributions to particular actions taken (or not taken). Routinely 

collecting school practices data and making it available in existing databases or routinely 

sampling schools could help researchers understand which schools undertake reform and which 

do not, as well as which actions ultimately appear related to improved student outcomes.

A more robust theoretical foundation and knowledge base are prerequisites to designing studies 

that could attribute dramatic improvements in achievement patterns to school improvement 

activities.

Establishing and tracking the progress of schools—both qualitatively and quantitatively—would 

help researchers and policymakers better understand the relationships between school actions 

and student outcomes. However, this approach could not determine whether the actions caused 

the outcomes. Such causal attribution can only be demonstrated by rigorous studies of the impact 

of specific interventions. To date, there is virtually no research that examines the impact of 

specific school improvement interventions on student outcomes. This is in part because there has 

been insufficient work to identify potentially critical components of school improvement 

interventions, how these components might be optimally put together, and the important possible 

drivers of the school improvement process. Developing a more robust theoretical foundation for 

the school improvement process and developing testable hypotheses would be the important 

prerequisites for designing interventions that could be tested rigorously to determine their impact 

on student outcomes.

In sum, studies of dramatic school improvement, like studies of school reform more broadly, 

requires asking the right questions and building ongoing data sources and activities to address 

those questions, or, in other words, a thoughtful, cumulative program of research to inform 

practice.
Chapter 9 67

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

NCLB has raised the stakes for persistently low-performing schools. As states place more schools 

in Needs Improvement or Restructuring status, educators on the front lines are searching for 

ways to improve their school’s performance, and policymakers are searching for specific 

practices they can recommend to help schools turn around quickly. For years, research on school 

reform has offered many different ingredients—in the areas of leadership, climate, instructional 

practices, and support—that appear to help schools increase student achievement. Research also 

has concluded that different combinations of these ingredients, embodied in comprehensive 

school reforms, can achieve results if they are implemented well (Aladjem et al., 2006). This 

study joins others in concluding that there is no single recipe for success. Our examination of 

CSR schools yields lessons about the variety of approaches to school improvement and the 

complexity of the environments in which educators work. These environments can challenge 

even well-implemented reform efforts, and similar strategies can yield different outcomes 

depending on factors both within and outside the control of schools, districts, and states. Below 

we review some of the overarching points that emerged from our in-depth case studies of 11 

schools.

To what extent do school rapid-improvement CSR schools exist (i.e., schools that have 

made quick and dramatic improvement in student achievement)? Could we locate them 

among a national pool of CSR schools engaged in improvement efforts?

Few schools nationwide met our criteria as rapid-improvement schools. From our database of 

1,037 CSR elementary schools that were initially low-performing in both reading and math 

achievement, we were able to identify only 47 that showed dramatic and sustained achievement 

gains in subsequent years. Finding dramatically improved middle schools proved even more 

difficult. This suggests that few schools across the nation are likely to be making quick gains that 

are sustained over an appreciable period of time.

One difficulty in identifying these schools is the lack of a commonly accepted definition of what 

constitutes rapid and dramatic school improvement. There are varying ideas on how much a 

school should improve, within what time frame, how long the improvement should be sustained, 

and using what outcome measure(s). How this school-level change compares with district or 

state achievement over a similar time period also seems relevant. A school may improve 

performance substantially, but if its change is not much different than that of the average school 

in the state during this period, it should probably not be the target of study for its “dramatic” 

achievement improvements. The same caution applies to improvement increases that coincide 

with nontrivial changes in student composition.22 It can be a challenge to disentangle the impact 

of such external factors from the effect of school-level reforms; nonetheless it is important to 

acknowledge these factors in school improvement, as we have tried to do in this study.

 22 Although if schools improve despite substantial increases in high-needs students, then they may indeed be 

improving schools.
Chapter 9 68

Did the processes of reform across both rapid-improvement schools and slow-and-steady 

schools (i.e., initially low-performing schools that steadily improved at a slower pace) 

reflect the characteristics and strategies found in prior research on school improvement?

Yes, the rapid-improvement and slow-and-steady schools that were studied consistently 

addressed factors long identified in school reform research as contributors to improved student 

outcomes. Across the board, the improving schools that we studied reported adopting and 

implementing new leadership styles, practices to improve school climate, new instructional 

strategies and practices, and strategies to ensure external support. However, specific practices 

varied across schools. 

While the schools visited implemented distinctive practices to address common challenges, they 

also combined these practices in a variety of different ways. Some schools placed greater 

emphasis on one factor (e.g., distributed leadership) than another (e.g., transparent use of 

student-level data). Others chose a different order of factors or combined features of reform in 

unique ways to establish a comprehensive, whole-school approach. Furthermore, reform 

strategies interacted in multiple ways, suggesting that the same reforms may be more or less 

successful depending on differences in leadership, staff capacity, community support, and other 

factors.

Schools engaged in varying combinations of reforms that they often adapted and changed over 

time to meet their changing needs and circumstances. The energy, experience, and stability of 

leadership and teachers also influenced the interplay of reforms, and this interplay appeared to 

require ongoing monitoring and fine-tuning. 

School improvement did not occur in a vacuum. While much of the recent literature on turning 

around the achievement of low-performing schools focuses on changes at the school level, we 

found few examples of schools that improved in isolation. Respondents in our study rarely 

mentioned districts as inhibiting reform efforts (as is implied in some of the literature on 

turnaround schools), and they often identified districts as being key initiators and supporters of 

school reform. State and federal accountability also appeared to foster greater alignment of state, 

district, and school efforts. 

Did rapid-improvement schools differ in observable, systematic ways from slow-andsteady schools?

Rapid-improvement schools and slow-and-steady schools had much in common, but there were 

differences as well. In rapid-improvement schools with classic profiles of student achievement 

(those in which achievement gains were substantial and rapid at the outset of our five-year study 

period), improvements in student achievement were credited to new principals who were viewed 

as change leaders and who continued to lead the school through the study period.23 In contrast, 

two of the three schools with slow-and-steady increases in student achievement had multiple 

principals during the study’s five-year time period. Perhaps in part because of this, respondents 

in slow-and-steady schools were more likely to attribute their success to distributed leadership 

(in which teachers and other school staff shared leadership with the principals) than were 

 23 See page 10 for a definition of this category.
Chapter 9 69

respondents in rapid-improvement schools. And while both categories of schools may have 

attributed their success to use of data, the classic profile schools appeared to use data in more 

transparent and public ways. Staff in the rapid-improvement schools also were more likely than 

those in the slow-and-steady schools to attribute their success to increased learning time, either 

from an extended school year, after-school programs, or block scheduling within the school day. 

How did rapid-improvement schools and slow-and-steady schools address challenges to 

implementing and sustaining improvement strategies?

Sustaining improvement in student achievement appeared to be as challenging as achieving it in 

the first place. As we described in this report, two of the rapid-improvement schools originally 

identified as having made quick gains according to our selection criteria showed considerable 

declines in more recent years. Even schools that sustained their growth reported continuing 

challenges, whether a high level of student mobility, maintaining a sense of urgency among staff, 

or continuing to develop new teacher leaders as experienced staff advanced to administrative 

positions elsewhere. In several cases, both rapid-improvement and slow-and-steady schools had 

to cope with diminished resources, even as they showed improvement—in some cases because of 

their improvement. These cases point to an often chaotic and sometimes irrational environment 

that can thwart the sustainability of hard-won gains.

Final Note

This report provides many examples of specific ways that schools appear to be achieving 

noteworthy gains in student outcomes. It points to the dynamic settings in which many lowperforming schools operate, and the need for ongoing investigation of how schools can achieve 

impressive results and sustain them in constantly changing environments. A serious effort to 

understand low-performing schools that improved will involve going beyond case studies of the 

rare examples of dramatic improvement—i.e., the “outlier” schools that have beaten the odds. . 

Such studies are suggestive but do not provide systematic information about the incidence of 

rapid school improvement, the factors associated with it, and similarities and differences with 

schools that have not achieved such outcomes. Armed with this knowledge as a foundation, 

researchers might then design interventions and rigorous studies to determine their impact on 

student outcomes. 

Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in recent years have paid much attention to the 

scientific search for “what works” to improve schools and turn them around. This study’s 

findings underscore the challenges inherent in such efforts by drawing attention to the fact that 

turning schools around is not just about adopting a set of effective or promising practices. It is 

about recognizing that the one best system does not exist—that no single approach can guarantee 

improvement in a particular school. Efforts to improve low-performing schools are by their 

nature interventions in ongoing systems. Prior history as well as existing routines, beliefs, and 

cultures of the school will influence how interventions are interpreted, implemented, and interact 

to produce the results specific to that context. Finally, turning schools around, like other school 

improvement efforts also is about implementing practices well while at the same time navigating 

and adapting to a constantly changing landscape.

References 71

REFERENCES

Aladjem, D. K., LeFloch, K. C., Zhang, Y., Kurki, A., Boyle, A., Taylor, J. E., Herrman, S., 

Uekawa, K., Thomsen, K., and Fashola, O. (2006). Models Matter—The Final Report of 

the National Longitudinal Evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform. Washington, 

D.C.: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved May 31, 2007, from 

http://www.air.org/publications/documents/NLECSR_2006.pdf.

Anderson, L. W., and Shirley, J. R. (1995). High School Principals and School Reform: 

Lessons Learned from a Statewide Study of Project Re:Learning. Educational 

Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 405–423.

Berends, M. (2000). Teacher-Reported Effects of New American School Designs: Exploring 

the Relationships to Teacher Background and School Context. Educational Evaluation 

and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 65–82. 

Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., and McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and 

Performance in New American Schools: Three Years into Scale-Up. Santa Monica, 

California: RAND.

Borman, G. D., Hewes, G., Overman, L., and Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive School 

Reform and Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 

73(2), 125–230.

Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., and Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School 

Social Systems and Student Achievement: Schools Can Make a Difference. New York: 

Prager.

Brookover, W. B., and Lezotte, L. W. (1977). Changes in School Characteristics Coincident 

with Changes in Student Achievement. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State 

University, College of Urban Development. 

Camburn, E., Rowan, B., and Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed Leadership in Schools: The 

Case of Elementary Schools Adopting Comprehensive School Reform Models. 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347–373.

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J. L., and Wheeler, J., (2007). High Poverty Schools 

and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals. North Carolina Law Review, 85.

(June), 1345–1380.

Cohen, D. K., and Hill, H. C. (1998). Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The 

Mathematics Reform in California (RR-39). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research 

in Education.

Datnow, A., Lasky, S., Stringfield, S., and Teddlie, C. (2006). Systemic Integration for 

Effective Reform in Racially and Linguistically Diverse Contexts. New York: Cambridge 

University Press.
References 72

Desimone, L. (2000). Making Comprehensive School Reform Work (Urban Diversity Series 

No.112). East Lansing, Michigan: Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Institute for Urban 

and Minority Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.1637)

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective Schools for the Urban Poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 

15–18, 20–24.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Washington, D.C., 

Albert Shanker Institute.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., and Yoon, K. S. (2001). What Makes 

Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers.

American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed Properties: A New Architecture for Leadership. Educational 

Management and Administration, 28(3), 317–338.

Hart, A. W. (1995). Reconceiving School Leadership: Emergent Views. Elementary School 

Journal, 96(1), 9–28.

Heller, M. J., and Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who’s In Charge Here? Sources of Leadership for 

Change in Eight Schools. Elementary School Journal, 95, 65–86.

Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., and Darwin, M. 

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

#2008-4020). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 

from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides.

Johnson, J. F., and Asera, R. (eds.). (1999). Hope for Urban Education: A Study of Nine 

High-Performing, High-Poverty, Urban Elementary Schools. Washington, D.C.: Policy 

Studies Associates and University of Texas at Austin, Charles A. Dana Center.

Kowal, J. M., and Hassel, E. A. (2005). Turnarounds with New Leaders and Staff. 

Washington, D.C.: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.

Kurki, A., Boyle, A., and Aladjem, D. K., (2006). Implementation: Measuring and Explaining 

the Fidelity of CSR Implementation. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 

11(3and4), 255–277.

LeFloch, C., Martinez, F., O’Day J., Stecher, B., and Taylor, J. (2007). State and Local 

Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume III—Accountability Under 

NCLB: Interim Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

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

Mosenthal, J., Lipson, M., Torncello, S., Russ, B., and Mekkelsen, J. (2004). Contexts and 

Practices of Six Schools Successful in Obtaining Reading Achievement. The Elementary 

School Journal, 104(5), 343–367.
References 73

O’Day, J., and Bitter, C. (2003). Evaluation Study of the Immediate 

Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act 

of 1999: Final Report. Palo Alto, California: American Institutes for Research.

Picucci, A. C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R., and Sobel, A. (2002a). Driven to Succeed: HighPerforming, High-Poverty, Turnaround Middle Schools. Volume I: Cross-Case Analysis of 

High-Performing, High-Poverty, Turnaround Middle Schools. Austin, Texas: University 

of Texas at Austin, Charles A. Dana Center.

Picucci, A. C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R., and Sobel, A. (2002b). Driven to Succeed: HighPerforming, High-Poverty, Turnaround Middle Schools. Volume II: Case Studies of HighPerforming, High-Poverty, Turnaround Middle Schools. Austin, Texas: University of 

Texas at Austin, The Charles A. Dana Center.

Public Impact. (2007). School Turnarounds: A Review of the Cross-Sector Evidence on 

Dramatic Organizational Improvement. Center on Innovation and Improvement.

Ross, S., Sanders, W., Wright, P., Stringfield, S., Wang, L., and Alberg, M. (2001). Two- and 

Three-Year Achievement Results from the Memphis Restructuring Initiative. School 

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(3), 323–346.

Smylie, M. A., Conley, S., and Marks, H. M. (2002). Exploring New Approaches to Teacher 

Leadership for School Improvement. In J. Murphy (ed.), The Educational Leadership 

Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century, 101st Yearbook of the National 

Society for the Study of Education, Part I (pp. 162–188). Chicago, Illinois: University of 

Chicago Press.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., and Diamond, J.B. (2001). Investigating School Leadership 

Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.

Spillane, J. P., and Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing Conceptions of Local Capacity: 

The Local Education Agency's Capacity for Ambitious Instructional Reform. Educational 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.

Stringfield, S., and Teddlie, C. (1991). Observers as Predictors of Schools' Multi-Year Outlier 

Status. Elementary School Journal, 91(4), 357–376.

Taylor, J. E. (2006). The Struggle to Survive: Examining the Sustainability of Schools’ 

Comprehensive School Reform Efforts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,

11(3 and 4), 331–352. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, 

Policy and Program Studies Service (2008), Evaluation of the Comprehensive School 

Reform Program Implementation and Outcomes: Third-Year Report, Washington, D.C.
References 74

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, and 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (2004). Longitudinal Assessment of 

Comprehensive School Reform Program Implementation and Outcomes: First-Year 

Report. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, and 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (2006). Models Matter—The Final Report 

of the National Longitudinal Evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform. Washington, 

D.C.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (Sept. 5, 2007). No Child Left Behind Act: Education 

Should Clarify Guidance and Address Potential Compliance Issues for Schools in 

Corrective Action and Restructuring Status. (Publication No. GAO-07-1035)

Viadero, D. (August 17, 2007). Scholars Reaching Outside Education for School Fixes. 

Education Week, 26(45). Bethesda, Maryland: Editorial Projects in Education.

Wallace, M. (2002). Modeling Distributed Leadership and Management Effectiveness: 

Primary School Senior Management Teams in England and Wales. School Effectiveness 

and School Improvement, 13(2), 163–186.

Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in 

Four States (NISE Research Monograph No. 18). Madison, Wisconsin: University of 

Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.

Weiss, C. H., and Cambone, J. (1994). Principals, Shared Decision Making, and School 

Reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 287–301.

Zhang, Y., Fashola, O., Shkolnik, J., and Boyle, A. (2006). The Implementation of 

Comprehensive School Reform and Its Impact on Increases in Student Achievement. 

Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(3–4), 309–329.
Appendix A 75

APPENDIX A—DETAILED METHODOLOGY

PILOT STUDY

Site Selection

Researchers applied several criteria to select low-performing schools that experienced major 

increases in student achievement. The criteria included: at least 40 percent of the students 

scoring below proficiency on the state test; a dramatic increase in the number of students 

achieving proficiency the following year; an increase in the number of students achieving 

proficiency over the three years beyond the baseline year; the number of high-poverty students 

served; and the achievement of adequate yearly progress (AYP) for at least the last two years 

prior to the pilot study.

Researchers used multiple sources to identify potential schools for site visits. Data from the 

Academic Development Institute (ADI) database, supplemented by data from approximately 40 

state education agency Web sites, were the primary sources. Furthermore, the researchers 

collected school data from the National Association of Secondary School Principals’ list of 

“breakthrough schools,” a list of principals recognized by the National Association of 

Elementary School Principals, and a list of award-winning principals. The U.S. Department of 

Education recommended additional candidates. By reviewing these sources against our criteria, 

the researchers selected nine sites. There was no requirement to select schools that received 

Comprehensive School Reform grants. Only two of the selected schools received the grants.

Although the original plan was to have a total of three schools at each level (elementary, middle, 

and high school), only two high schools met the criteria for inclusion. Consequently, the list of 

nine schools included two high schools, three middle schools, three elementary schools, and one 

school that serve kindergarten through eighth grade.

Interview protocols

WestEd developed a set of interview protocols to guide the onsite data collection. The 

instruments drew on existing research on CSR, LACIO findings and data collection experience, 

AIR’s data collection for the Study of State Implementation and Accountability and Teacher 

Quality under NCLB (SSI-NCLB), as well as the Turnaround Evidence Review authored by the 

Center for Innovation and Improvement. The pilot protocols were highly structured and lengthy. 

The instruments contained numerous specific questions and follow-up questions that left no 

opportunities to probe any responses. For example, the original principal interview protocol 

contained 23 primary questions and typically two to nine additional questions. Only one topic 

contained no additional questions.

Data Collection

A two-person WestEd and AIR team visited each site. The team spent most of each visit 

interviewing people individually. Interviewees at each site included a district contact, a new 
Appendix A 76

teacher, an experienced teacher, a parent, a community partner, and a principal. Each interview 

took 40 to 60 minutes. The principals were interviewed twice for a total of 90 minutes.

Results

The researchers produced a site report for each of the nine schools visited. The Technical Work 

Group (TWG) then reviewed the process and the results and provided feedback to the 

researchers, making important suggestions to improve the process. The TWG recommended 

shortening the interview protocols to permit more open-ended responses. The group also 

recommended interviewing more teachers in groups (and offering to meet individually if 

requested) and recommended focus groups with parents and each school’s leadership team.

PRIMARY STUDY

Sampling Frame

For the primary study after the pilot, researchers selected initially low-performing schools that 

received a CSR grant and experienced achievement improvements. They used three data sources 

to create the sampling frame: the CSR universe file, the National Longitudinal School-Level 

State Assessment Score Database (NLSLSASD) data set, and the Common Core of Data (CCD) 

file. The NLSLSASD data set included school-level achievement data, which served as the 

primary basis for site selection. The CCD file was used to identify schools’ grade spans.

Researchers edited and merged data from these sources to create an initial site selection database. 

They cleaned the CSR universe data file to remove duplicate records, consortia, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs schools, schools in Puerto Rico, and schools with missing National Center for Education 

Statistics codes. Next, researchers merged the NLSLSASD data set with the CCD data to add a 

grade span variable to the test score data set in order to distinguish between elementary, middle, 

and high schools. Researchers then edited the resulting data set to remove all states that were 

missing the 1999–2000 baseline achievement data. A total of 10 states were deleted for this 

reason. These steps produced a file with 6,446 schools that encompassed all grade levels. 

Researchers then merged the two modified data sets and deleted non-operational schools, 

resulting in a data set of 5,035 CSR schools that had achievement data.

The next step was to identify low-performing schools based on 1999–2000 baseline school year 

achievement data. Because the majority of states were testing only one elementary grade and one 

middle grade, researchers based their site selection on achievement data for a single grade level. 

They examined the distributions of z-scores for reading and math and identified schools whose 

baseline reading and math achievement were in the bottom 50 percent of the initial schools. This 

process identified 1,037 initially low-performing elementary schools that had received a CSR 

grant and 506 middle schools.

To complete the sampling frame, the researchers needed to identify improved schools. While the 

emphasis was on schools that made quick, dramatic, and sustained gains, schools that made 

slow-and-steady progress were of interest also. Researchers identified rapid-improvement 
Appendix A 77

schools on the basis of annual gains in standardized achievement scores from 1999–2000 to 

2004–05. Researchers identified each school’s achievement score gain for each of the five years 

in this period in reading and separately in math, resulting in a total of 10 gain scores for each 

school. The researchers selected the top 50 percent of schools with gains in both subjects for 

each year in the study period. They analyzed all subsequent years following each gain period to 

ensure that no declines greater than 0.1 standard deviation occurred. They repeated the selection 

of the top 50 percent for each subject area and each school level for each year, creating a 

composite list that included all schools with annual gains and no single decreases greater than 0.1 

standard deviation. The process produced a pool of 47 elementary schools for possible selection. 

However, these criteria did not yield any dramatically improving middle schools. Therefore the 

criteria for initially low-performing middle schools was expanded to include schools in the 

bottom 75 percent in reading and math. This added 403 schools for a total of 909 initially lowperforming middle schools 81 showed dramatic improvements in reading, math, or reading and 

math (39 based on reading only, 34 based math only, and 8 in both reading and math).

The researchers next defined slow-and-steady schools as those initially low-performing schools 

not previously identified as demonstrating dramatic improvement but exhibiting an overall gain 

in either reading or math achievement from 1999–2000 to 2004–05 and with no single-year 

decline greater than 0.25 standard deviation. Researchers conducted separate analyses for each 

subject area and school level. This process generated a slow-and-steady school list of 53 

elementary schools and 36 middle schools. Of the elementary schools 31 were identified based 

on reading, 19 based on math, and 3 based on both subjects. Among the middle schools, 15 were 

identified based on reading, 20 based on math, and 1 based on both subjects.

Site Selection

To produce the final list of sites, researchers applied additional restrictions to the identified 

schools. Researchers eliminated sites that had dramatic demographic shifts greater than 15 

percentage points in federal lunch program participants or minority students. The researchers 

also used achievement data from state files to help select schools with the highest achievement 

levels in 2005 and 2006. Additionally, they had state officials confirm that gains were not 

artifacts of proficiency calculation changes. Also, schools that did not make AYP by 2006 were 

eliminated. Beyond these restrictions, researchers selected high-poverty schools with broad 

representation across states and locale types. All processes culminated in a list of 10 preferred 

sites (nine elementary schools and one middle school) as well as a list of eight alternate sites (six 

elementary schools, one middle, and one PK-12 school) to replace unavailable preferred sites.

Researchers then selected comparison schools that were initially low-performing and received a 

CSR award but made little or no improvement on standardized achievement measures from 

1999–2000 to 2004–05. The researchers limited the pool of comparison schools to schools that 

received CSR awards within two years of the sample school. Researchers also examined all 

potential comparison schools to determine if they implemented the same CSR model as the 

sample school. The process yielded at least one comparison site for eight of the 10 preferred sites 

and four of the eight alternate sites. The researchers selected five of these sites for potential 

participation. All potential comparison sites were elementary schools since no comparison 

middle schools were identified.
Appendix A 78

After the initial identification of candidate schools for study, we examined updated achievement 

patterns from the selected schools using data through 2006–07 for all tested grades obtained from 

individual state education agency Websites. This effort informed the study’s qualitative process 

and also determined the accuracy of our original classification of schools. We also examined 

patterns in district and state achievement relative to those at the selected schools to determine 

how school-level achievement compared to achievement at the district and state levels. Using the 

percentages of students reaching proficiency in reading or English language arts and math on 

state assessments through spring 2007, along with the average district and state performance in 

the tested grades and subjects, we revised the description of schools’ achievement patterns in 

some sites to more accurately represent their standing through the latest year of the study. We 

also examined demographic data (e.g., school enrollment levels), along with the case study 

information, to assess whether factors other than school practices and strategies might have been 

strongly related to achievement patterns. Exhibit 3 lists the schools included in this study, their 

selected characteristics, and 2002–07 achievement patterns.

In the course of undertaking these more thorough examinations of school achievement patterns 

using more recent data, we found that the original distinction between comparison and sample 

schools did not hold. In particular, two schools initially selected as comparison sites were 

actually making substantial achievement gains during the time period that we were studying 

(2002–07). We therefore added these two schools to our case study sample, one as a rapidimprovement site and the other as a slow-and-steady site.

Site Recruitment and Preparation

To gain access to the identified schools, the researchers submitted formal applications to the 

respective school districts. Each packet included a detailed proposal with information about the 

purpose of the study, the selection process, the site visit process, and estimated time burden on 

the school. An appendix contained a copy of the informed consent form, all interview and focus 

group protocols, as well as Independent Review Board (IRB) documentation. 

Gaining access to the schools was the next step. District officials disapproved two schools, one 

due to doubts about the improvement. Another school changed its grade configuration. Yet 

another requested a visit that could not be accommodated in the study time frame. A fifth school 

was eliminated due to its failure to provide necessary information. Researchers identified 

alternates for all schools. Of the resulting recruitment list of 10 sample schools and five 

comparison schools, researchers were able to ultimately recruit nine sample schools and two 

comparison schools. However, as noted earlier, subsequent data were reviewed that two schools 

initially recruited as comparison schools actually exhibited noteworthy improvements. They 

were thus retained as study sites resulting in a final list of 11 schools with no comparison sites.24 

Eight of these were rapid-improvement, while three were slow-and-steady. 

After receiving confirmation from the school principals, researchers sent a packet of materials to 

each school to help prepare for the visit. One document defined the participants for the various 

interviews and focus groups. Worksheets enabled the principals to list the people for each 

 24 While comparison sites would have strengthened the study, time constraints precluded additional recruitment 

efforts. 
Appendix A 79

session and to schedule the sessions. A final list showed all documents that the site visitors 

would need.

Instrumentation

Based on the TWG’s recommendations following the pilot study, the researchers shortened the 

pilot protocols and made them less structured to permit more open-ended responses. Researchers 

also developed interview and focus group protocols for school leaders, teachers, support staff, 

parents, community partners, and school district officials (see Appendix B).

Research staff from WestEd and AIR volunteered to serve as the site visitors. The study staff 

created additional documents to help site visitors organize their data and to provide a uniform 

structure for reporting. An analytic table provided a structure to capture the key features of CSR 

components and the turnaround framework and to assist site visitors in organizing and 

synthesizing data collected onsite. Also, the table provided a uniform format to assist with the 

cross-site analysis. In addition to generating a general description of the site, site visitors had to 

identify the site’s distinguishing features and catalysts.

Researchers developed a report outline to enable site visitors to provide consistent reports. The 

report outline included an introduction, school characteristics, findings, a school improvement 

chronology, and descriptions of the individual topics in the analytic table. Furthermore, the 

outline required site visitors to analyze the relationships between actions and processes as well as 

to draw conclusions.

A one-day training for site visitors introduced them to the study framework, the protocols, and 

the project timeline. Researchers created the analytic table and report outline after the training.

Data Collection

The researchers formed two-person site visit teams with no more than one junior researcher per 

team. Each team, with one exception, included one researcher from WestEd and one from AIR.

A total of 13 site visitors completed at least one site visit. At least one visitor to each of the two

comparison schools also visited the corresponding sample school. Site visits typically lasted for 

two to three school days. All initial visits were conducted from mid-November 2007 through 

Feb. 1, 2008. Almost all subsequent follow-up activities were conducted via telephone and email.

In appreciation for their participation, each school received $200 following the initial site visit. 

Because many staff, but not all, participated in the process, the study team decided a school 

gratuity was more appropriate than individual gratuities.
Appendix A 80

Data Analysis

Case Study Reports

Site visitors collected an enormous amount of information from each site. They analyzed their 

notes and documents to produce an account of the school improvement chronology and related 

factors. All information in the narrative report was expected to be verifiable through information 

in the analytic table. Site teams completed their draft reports between late December 2007 and 

early March 2008. At least one researcher from each organization reviewed each report. 

Typically, three to four people reviewed each report, and at least two provided comments to the 

site visitors. The site visitors and report reviewers participated in telephone conference calls to 

discuss each draft report. The initial call focused on one report, then subsequent calls focused on 

two reports in order for site visitors to become aware of practices and challenges in other 

schools. More importantly, the calls provided site visitors with general and specific 

recommendations to improve their reports. Site visit teams completed final case study reports 

after addressing all issues from the review process.

Cross-Site Report

A seven-person writing team developed the cross-site report. Participants had reviewed the 

majority of the case study reports, and two of the members had conducted site visits. The writing 

team held conference calls to discuss issues and to ensure progress of the report development.

To begin the collective discussion of the individual case studies, all site visitors met with the 

writing team. In preparation for that meeting, the writing team asked site visitors to consider 

whether the school was a low-performing school that improved and whether the achievement 

changes were different from the rest of the state. The team also asked site visitors to consider 

staff changes, student changes, and resource infusions before focusing on reported reforms. In 

response, site visitors generated brief summaries that served as the basis for discussion with the 

writing team, helping identify specific areas that required additional follow-up activity at each 

site and helping generate an initial list of cross-site themes. (See Appendix C for cross-site 

summaries). 

Writing team members also met with the TWG to gain additional perspectives on the main 

stories for each site and on the cross-site report. In preparation for this meeting, the writing team 

constructed site abstracts from the available draft reports and the brief summaries prepared for 

the cross-site meeting. Writing team members consulted with site visitors as needed to provide 

additional details. Abstracts provided contextual information, a description of the achievement 

trends, and a description of school activities.

Consistent with the original plans for this study, site visitors developed vignettes to illustrate the 

cross-site themes. Each site visit team determined which themes were most important to their 

school’s achievement growth. Some of the vignettes required additional follow up with the 

school.
Appendix B 81

APPENDIX B—DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

Informed Consent Form .................................................................................................82

Community Member Focus Group Protocol.................................................................84

Current Principal/Assistant Principal Protocol............................................................86

Curriculum/Instructional Specialist Interview Protocol..............................................88

District Curriculum Specialist Protocol.........................................................................90

District Official Interview Protocol................................................................................92

Document Review Checklist............................................................................................94

ELA/Mathematics Department Chair Interview Protocol ..........................................95

Experienced Principal Interview Protocol.....................................................................97

Experienced Teacher Focus Group Protocol ..............................................................100

Guidance Counselor Interview Protocol......................................................................103

New Teacher Focus Group Protocol ............................................................................105

Parent Focus Group Protocol .......................................................................................107

School Improvement Plan (SIP)/Leadership Team Focus Group Protocol .............109
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 82

Exhibit B.1

Informed Consent Form

LACIO—TURNAROUND CASE STUDIES

This study of “turnaround” schools is sponsored by the U.S. Department of 

Education, and is being conducted by WestEd and American Institutes for 

Research (AIR). 

1. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to learn about how schools have 

successfully “turned around” from low performance to high performance in a 

short time. 

2. Procedures to be followed: We will review documents and interview key 

informants who will be invited to participate in the study. All audio tape recordings 

and notes will be coded without reference to school or informant name. As a key 

informant, we will ask you questions about the school’s vision and goals, its 

successes and challenges, including specific questions regarding noticeable 

changes in the school during the interview or focus group. These interviews will 

be audiotaped to ensure that all information is accurately captured with your 

verbal consent. 

3. Benefits: Your participation in the study will help us understand the 

accomplishments and challenges in school restructuring. This understanding will 

support future research, policy, and education planning. There are no direct 

benefits to you as an individual of participating in this study.

4. Risks and Discomforts: Research reports will not identify schools by name, nor 

will research participants be identified by name. However, roles of participants 

within school communities will be presented. Because there are a limited number 

of schools involved in this study, we may not be able to protect the confidentiality 

of your comments if you have a unique role in your school (such as principal, 

superintendent, PTA president). Participation in a focus group will affect the 

confidentiality of your responses, in that, other participants in the focus group will 

hear your responses. If you are uncomfortable with the focus group at any time, 

you may select not to participate or you may request a one-on-one interview with 

the site visitors. There are no other anticipated risks in participating in this study.

5. Time required: Interviews will last between 45–90 minutes. 

6. Confidentiality: All of the information we gather during the interviews, focus 

groups, and document reviews will be held confidential. We are required to share 

our findings (not the data) with the study’s sponsor (the U.S. Department of 

Education) in a report. 

a. We will not use your name or any other identifiable information in any 

written reports resulting from the study. We will replace your name with a 

pseudonym during the data collection and analysis process to ensure that 

the information you give us remains confidential. As the school name will 
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 83

also be reported with a pseudonym, you will not be identifiable in 

reporting. Regardless, you have the right to stop all interviews and 

recordings at anytime during the interview and speak off the record.

b. Only AIR and WestEd staff will have access to your interview 

responses. All information gathered from interviews, including 

audiotapes, will be stored in a locked file cabinet or restricted (password 

protected) computer file. 

c. These data will not be used in any other study. All data and materials, 

including audio tapes and written statements, will be securely disposed of 

three years after completion of this study.

7. Right to Ask Questions: For more information about this study, you may 

contact Lauren Davis Sosenko at (562)799-5476 or ldavis@wested.org. For 

questions regarding your rights as a research participant, you may contact 

Independent Review Consulting at 1-800-472-3241 or subjects@irb-irc.com. 

8. Voluntary Participation: Your participation in the study is voluntary; you have 

the right to withdraw from the study at any time. You do not have to answer any 

question that you do not want to answer. You will face no penalty or loss of 

benefits to which you are entitled if you refuse to participate in this study. If you 

refuse to participate or drop out, your relationship with your school system will 

not be harmed. 

By signing this form, you are indicating that you have read and understood the 

information provided to you about your participation in this study and you agree 

to participate in the study, including being audiotaped. 

Print Participant’s Name: 

_____________________________________________________

Participant’s Signature: _________________________________ Date: 

________________

Note: participant must be given a blank copy of this form to keep.
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 84

Exhibit B.2

Community Member Focus Group Protocol

1. Tell me a little about how you came to be involved in the school.

[Probes: Who encouraged your involvement? Did the encouragement come from the school 

or district? A community organization?]

2. In what capacity are you involved with the school? 

[Probes: Are you involved in supporting school actions at board meetings and other public 

events, providing services to students within the school, providing materials and equipment. 

For how long?]

3. With whom at the school do you interact? How often? On what topics? Has this 

changed over the period during which you have worked with the school? If so, when 

did the change take place?

[Probe to identify parties with whom they communicate: Principal? Teachers? Parents? 

Students? Community liaisons? Has the school given you data about student 

achievement?)]

[Probe to identify topics: Student achievement? Data? Student behavior? Parental 

involvement? School facilities?]

4. What would I have seen had I come to this school five years ago? How are things 

different now? Who or what prompted changes at the school? (N/A if the respondent 

has been working with the school for fewer than five years).

5. In general, how do you feel about the school? Has your impression changed over 

time? If so, what caused the change? What is the school’s reputation in the district? 

Compared to other schools?

6. How are community members made aware of the school’s vision, plans, and goals? 

Are you aware of any school accomplishments? Problems? How are the problems 

and accomplishments communicated? By whom?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 85

7. What role do community members play in the implementation of school activities?

[Probes: In what way do they support instructional improvement? Are community members 

involved in planning, implementing, or evaluation school activities? If so, how?] 

8. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of the school’s improvement 

efforts? 
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 86

Exhibit B.3

Current Principal/Assistant Principal Interview Protocol

1. Tell me little about yourself.

[Probe: When did you come to the school? What is your educational background? How 

many years have you been a principal? At this school? Do you have prior experience or 

training working with low-performing schools or students?]

2. Are you aware of any major school improvement efforts that occurred before you came 

to this school? If yes, are you aware if these reforms were comprehensive? Why they 

were selected?

[Probes for turnaround schools: Were you aware of the turnaround that occurred in student 

achievement? Who or what do you think was responsible for the turnaround?]

[Probe for comparison sites: Which of the school improvement efforts had the most 

significant effects on student achievement?]

[Probe at all schools for the existence of a research base and source of information about 

that base, as well as parental involvement in decision making and coordination of 

resources.]

3. What was the school like when you arrived? 

[Probes: What were the school’s strengths? Weaknesses? What was the student 

achievement profile? What were the teachers like? What was the general climate of the 

school? What was the relationship between the school and the district? Were reform efforts 

underway? If so, what were they? How were they working? Have they changed? If so, what 

influenced the change(s)?]

4. Have any changes been made in the overall approach to reform since you arrived? If 

so, on what basis were they made? To what extent did school-based data influence 

these changes? What has been the reaction of staff? Of parents? Of the central 

office? How frequently have changes been made?

5. Are the actions to improve student achievement monitored? If so, how? 
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 87

6. What would happen to the school, principal, and teachers if the school did not meet its 

achievement targets?

7. Describe the formative and summative assessment system for student achievement 

at your school. How do you use data from these assessments? To what extent do 

measurable goals exist?

[Probes: How/where did you learn to use these data? Have there been any changes in the 

assessment system in the past 5 years? How does the school review these data in relation 

to implementation?] 

8. Do you have authority to hire replacement teachers or are they assigned from the 

central office? From what sources do you find new staff?

9. How do you support staff?

[Probe for use of external assisters, staff development opportunities, schedule changes to 

facilitate grade-level and content sharing.]

10. When new teachers come to the school, are there practices (e.g., formal or informal 

mentorships, special orientation, professional development) to introduce them to the 

key curriculum, instructional, and organizational activities? Please describe.

11. What programs or policies currently exist designed to ensure sustained 

achievement? 

[Probe: When were these introduced? Do they have a research base? Are they 

comprehensive? How are parents involved in planning? What resources are used to support 

programs and policies? How are they coordinated?] 

12. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of your school improvement 

efforts?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 88

Exhibit B.4

Curriculum/Instructional Specialist Interview Protocol

1. Tell me about your background.

[Probes: When did you come to the school? What is your educational background? How 

many years have you been as the specialist? At this school? Did you have prior experience 

or training working with low-performing schools or students?]

2. What are the major school improvement efforts your school has engaged in over the 

last five years? Are they comprehensive (e.g., do they integrate instruction, 

assessment, and professional development)? Why were these selected?

[Probes for turnaround schools: Who or what do you think was responsible for the 

turnaround? Which of the efforts was most important for accomplishing the turnaround?]

[Probe for comparison sites: Which of the school improvement efforts had the most 

significant effects on student achievement?]

[Probe at all schools for the existence of a research base and source of information about 

that base.]

3. What actions were taken to start school improvement efforts at the school? Who was 

involved in those actions? Describe any major barriers to the actions. Important to get 

detailed chronology of actions.

[Probes: To what extent did teachers and staff support those actions? How did they show 

support (e.g., formal votes)? Role of other leaders—and who were they? Teachers? Formal 

leadership team? Parents? Community? District office? External organizations? Who made 

final decisions for the actions? Who set improvement goals for the school? Was there a 

specific timeline for achievement goals?]

4. What was the school like when you arrived? Was there a current formal needs 

assessment?

[Probes: What were the school’s strengths? Weaknesses? What was the general climate of 

the school? What was the student achievement profile? What were the teachers like? What 

was the relationship between the school and the district? Were reform efforts underway 

when you arrived? If so, what were they? Were they comprehensive? How were they 

working? Have they changed? If so, what influenced the change(s)?] 

5. Were the actions to improve student achievement monitored? If so, how? 

[Probes: What data were used? Would you describe the actions as an intervention and/or 

instructional change?] 

6. What programs, practices, policies were introduced to improve student achievement? 

When? Why were these selected? If multiple strategies are in use, what were early 

actions? What came later?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 89

[Probes: On what basis were these selected? To what extent did the research base 

influence the selection of strategies? To what extent did school-based data influence the 

selection?]

7. What resources were used to support the actions taken to improve student 

achievement? Were additional resources needed? Where did they come from? Were 

they coordinated?

[Probes: Federal, state, district, philanthropic, or other sources? Use of both fiscal and 

human resources? Resources reallocated? School autonomy in budgeting?] 

8. How did staff react to the plans for improvement? To what extent were they involved 

in the decisions?

[Probes: Did staff support or resist the plans for improvement? How? How was staff 

resistance overcome? Were there any staff changes or turnover? If yes, what were the 

reasons for these staff changes? What is the process for replacing (hiring new) teachers? 

How did the staff turnover affect the process?]

9. What support did teachers receive to help them successfully implement school 

improvement efforts? When? How were the teachers motivated to participate in the 

reform? 

[Probes: Help from people outside the school (e.g., model developers, consultants)? 

Professional development? Opportunities to meet as grade-level or content teams? Teacher 

incentives?]

10. When new teachers come to the school, are there practices (e.g., formal or informal 

mentorships, special orientation, professional development) to introduce them to the 

key curriculum, instructional, and organizational activities? If so, when were these 

practices introduced?

11. Describe the formative and summative assessment system for student achievement 

at your school. How do you use data from these assessments? To what extent do 

measurable goals exist?

[Probes: How/where did you learn to use these data? Have there been any changes in the 

assessment system in the past 5 years? How does the school review these data in relation 

to implementation of the reform effort?] 

12. How did the district office react to the changes in the school?

[Probes: How did it support or inhibit reform actions? Did you encounter any resistance from 

the district office or school board in implementing the actions? If so, what actions were taken 

to overcome the resistance?] 
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 90

Exhibit B.5

District Curriculum Specialist Protocol

1. We are examining efforts to improve student achievement over the past five years. 

Are you aware of any improvements in student achievement in the last five years? 

What do you think accounts for this improvement?

[Probes for turnaround school: Did the district intentionally seek to turn the school around? If 

so, what steps did the district take to make changes in practices at the school? Were they 

comprehensive? Was there a change in leadership or staff? Did the district provide staff 

development for teachers, change curriculum, engage external assistance? When? Did the 

district set specific expectations? Timeframe for improvement? Existence of a research 

base?]

[Probes for comparison school: Did the district intentionally target this school for 

improvement efforts? If so, what steps did the district take to make changes in practices at 

the school? Were they comprehensive? Was there a change in leadership or staff? Did the 

district provide staff development for teachers, change curriculum, engage external 

assistance? When? Did the district set specific expectations? Timeframe for improvement? 

Existence of a research base?]

2. Please tell me a little about yourself and your relationship with the school.

[Probes: How long have you been with the district? How long have you been at the central 

office? What previous positions did you hold in this district or in other districts?]

3. How well did the actions fit with district policies? Did any conflict with district 

policies and practices? If so, how did the principal act in the conflict? The central 

office? Were any waivers to district policies granted? To the union contract?

4. Did the district monitor progress toward meeting student achievement goals 

differently for this school from how it monitors other schools? If so, please describe 

the differences.

[Probes: Is more intense attention paid to this school? If so, how is that intensity shown? 

Does it still monitor progress differently?]

5. What support did the district provide to the school to encourage change in student 

achievement? What supports are in place to ensure continuous improvement? Do 

these differ from supports provided to other schools in the district? If so, what is the 

rationale for the difference? How are these resources coordinated?

[Probes: Support such as extra staff, targeted financial resources, additional fiscal 

resources, policy changes, assistance from external agencies? Rationale such as to 

stimulate change? To reward positive outcomes?]

6. Have the school’s goals or plan to achieve the goals changed over the last five 
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 91

years? If so, how? What was the rationale for the change(s)? To what extent do 

measurable goals exist?

[Probes: Challenges in implementing the original plan, changes in state or district policies, 

focus on new priorities because of the successes in the first area(s) of focus.]

[Probe for turnaround schools: Have the goals or plans changed in light of improvements in 

achievement over time?]

7. What programs, practices, policies were introduced at the school to improve student 

achievement? When? Are they comprehensive (e.g., do they integrate instruction, 

assessment, and professional development)? Why were these selected? If multiple 

strategies are in use, what were early actions? What came later?

[Probes: On what basis were these selected? To what extent did the research base 

influence the selection of strategies? To what extent did school-based data influence the 

selection?]

8. What professional development is available to teachers to support improvement? 

Who provides this professional development

[Probes: External assistance providers? District? School-site staff?]

9. Describe the formative and summative assessment system for student achievement 

in the district. How do you use data from these assessments?

[Probes: How/where did you learn to use these data? Have there been any changes in the 

assessment system in the past 5 years?]

10. How did the district office react to the changes in the school?

[Probes: How did it support or inhibit reform actions? Did you encounter any resistance from 

the district office or school board in implementing the actions? If so, what actions were taken 

to overcome the resistance?]

11. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of your school improvement 

efforts?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 92

Exhibit B.6

District Official Interview Protocol

1. Please tell me a little about yourself and your relationship with the school.

[Probes: How long have you been with the district? How long have you been at the central 

office? What previous positions did you hold in this district or in other districts?]

2. We are examining efforts to improve student achievement over the past five years. 

Are you aware of any improvements in student achievement in the last five years? 

What do you think accounts for this improvement?

[Probes for turnaround school: Did the district intentionally seek to turn the school around? If 

so, what steps did the district take to make changes in practices at the school? Were these 

efforts comprehensive changes? Was there a change in leadership or staff? Did the district 

provide staff development for teachers, change curriculum, engage external assistance? 

When? Did the district set specific expectations? Timeframe for improvement? Existence of 

a research base and source of information about that base?]

[Probes for comparison school: Did the district intentionally target this school for 

improvement efforts? Were these efforts comprehensive changes? If so, what steps did the 

district take to make changes in practices at the school? Was there a change in leadership 

or staff? Did the district provide staff development for teachers, change curriculum, engage 

external assistance? When? Did the district set specific expectations? Timeframe for 

improvement? Existence of a research base and source of information about that base?]

3. What actions has the principal taken to improve the school? When were these actions 

taken? To what extent did the central office drive these actions? Teachers? Parents? 

Community members?

[Probes: To what extent did teachers and staff support those actions? How did they show 

support (e.g., formal vote)? Does the principal have autonomy in hiring, budgeting, and 

curriculum decisions? Same or different from other schools in the district? If yes, has the 

level of autonomy changed over time?]

4. How well did the actions fit with district policies? Did any conflict with district 

policies and practices? If so, how did the principal act in the conflict? The central 

office? Were any waivers to district policies granted? To the union contract?

5. Did the district monitor progress toward meeting student achievement goals 

differently for this school from how it monitors other schools? If so, please describe 

the differences.

[Probes: Is more intense attention paid to this school? If so, how is that intensity shown?] 

Does it still monitor progress differently?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 93

6. What support did the district provide to the school to encourage change in student 

achievement? What supports are in place to ensure continuous improvement? Do 

these differ from supports provided to other schools in the district? If so, what is the 

rationale for the difference?

[Probes: Support such as extra staff, targeted financial resources, additional fiscal 

resources, policy changes, assistance from external agencies, and professional 

development? Rationale such as to stimulate change? To reward positive outcomes?]

7. What resources were used to support the actions taken to improve student 

achievement? Were additional resources needed? Where did they come from? Were 

they coordinated?

[Probes: Federal, state, district, philanthropic, or other sources? Use of both fiscal and 

human resources? Resources reallocated? School autonomy in budgeting?] 

8. Have successes, challenges, or failures in the efforts to stimulate high student 

achievement been documented? If so, how is the documentation used? What data are 

used to document the successes, challenges, and failures? Are these data reviewed 

in relation to implementation?

[Probes: Are successes celebrated? If so, how? Are failures used to change policies and 

practices?]

9. Have there been any changes to school leadership in the last five years? If so, what 

led to the personnel change? What were the qualities seen in the current principal 

that made you (or others in the central office) think he/she was an appropriate person 

for the job?

10. Have the school’s goals or plan to achieve the goals changed over the last five 

years? If so, how? What was the rationale for the change(s)? To what extent do 

measurable goals exist?

[Probes: Challenges in implementing the original plan, changes in state or district policies, 

focus on new priorities because of the successes in the first area(s) of focus, use of 

evaluation of implementation or impact of reform]

[Probe for turnaround schools: Have the goals or plans change in light of improvements in 

achievement over time?]

11. How much staff turnover has there been in the school? Why have staff members left?

12. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of the school’s improvement 

efforts?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 94

Exhibit B.7

Document Review Checklist

School code:

1. Resumes of key staff during the period of turnaround

(Note: public school employees frequently do not have current 

resumes. If the resumes are not available, use information from 

the interview questions about the principal’s and other school 

leaders’ backgrounds.)

2. The school improvement plan (SIP) or similar document

3. Curriculum guides (or a summary)

4. Pacing schedules

5. Descriptions of assessments and the schedule on which 

they are administered

6. School schedule (include instructional minutes)

7. Contracts with outside assisters such as model developers 

or consultants, OR a list of the outside assistance received

including topics and frequency of assistance

8. District policy and procedures manual, particularly as 

relates to hiring and budgeting

9. Any evaluations conducted for special projects that relate 

to the school

10. Examples of internal school data reports, particularly those 

that show longitudinal trends in student achievement.

NOTES:
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 95

Exhibit B.8

ELA/Mathematics Department Chair Interview Protocol

School code: Interviewer:

1. How long have you been a coach or department chair? How long did you teach? What 

grade levels/subjects? At this school? What brought you to this school?

2. What are the major school improvement efforts your school has engaged in over the 

last five years? Are they comprehensive (e.g., do they integrate instruction, 

assessment, and professional development)?

[Probes for turnaround schools: Who or what do you think was responsible for the 

turnaround in student achievement? Which of the efforts was most important for 

accomplishing the turnaround?]

[Probe for comparison schools: Which of the school improvement efforts had the most 

significant effects on student achievement?]

[Probe all schools for the existence of a research base and source of information about the 

base.]

3. Please describe your role at the school.

[Probe: With whom do you interact? How often? What services do you provide?]

4. What programs, practices, policies were introduced to improve student achievement? 

When? Why were these selected? If multiple strategies are in use, what were early 

actions? What came later?

[Probes: On what basis were these selected? To what extent did the research base 

influence the selection of strategies? To what extent did school-based data influence the 

selection? How are they linked to goals for school improvement?]

5. How did staff react to the plans for improvement? To what extent were they 

involved in the decisions?

[Probes: Did staff support or resist the plans for improvement? How? How was staff 

resistance overcome? Were there any staff changes or turnover? If yes, what were the 

reasons for these staff changes? What is the process for replacing (hiring new) teachers? 

How did the staff turnover affect the process?]

6. How did you support staff as they sought to implement the change?

[Probes: Use of external assisters, staff development opportunities, schedule changes to 

facilitate grade-level and content sharing?]
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 96

7. When new teachers come to the school, are there practices (e.g., formal or informal 

mentorships, special orientation, professional development) to introduce them to the 

key curriculum, instructional, and organizational activities? If so, when were these 

practices introduced?

8. Describe the formative and summative assessment system for student achievement 

at your school. How do you use data from these assessments? To what extent do 

measurable goals exist?

[Probes: How/where did you learn to use these data? Have there been any changes in the 

assessment system in the past 5 years? How does the school review these data in relation 

to implementation?]

9. What programs or policies currently exist designed to ensure sustained 

achievement?

[Probes: When were these introduced? Do they have a research base? Are they 

comprehensive?]

10. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of your school improvement 

efforts?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 97

Exhibit B.9

Experienced Principal Interview Protocol

School 

code: Interviewer:

1. Tell me about your background.

[Probes: When did you come to the school? What is your educational background? How 

many years have you been a principal? At this school? Did you have prior experience or 

training working with low-performing schools or students?]

2. What major school improvement efforts has your school engaged in over the last five 

years? Are they comprehensive (e.g., do they integrate instruction, assessment, and 

professional development)? Why were these selected?

[Probes for turnaround schools: Who or what do you think was responsible for the 

turnaround? Which of the efforts was most important for accomplishing the turnaround?]

[Probe for comparison sites: Which of the school improvement efforts had the most 

significant effects on student achievement? Who or what was responsible for this effort?]

[Probe at all schools for the existence of a research base and source of information about 

that base.]

3. What actions were taken to initiate school improvement efforts at the school? Who 

was involved in those actions? Describe any major barriers to the actions. Important 

to get detailed chronology of actions.

[Probes: To what extent did teachers and staff support those actions? How did they show 

support (e.g., formal votes)? Who were the leaders and what was their role (e.g., principal, 

teachers, formal leadership team, parents, community, district office, external 

organizations)? Who made final decisions for the actions? Who set improvement goals for 

the school? Was there a specific timeline for achievement goals?]

4. What was the school like when you arrived? Was there a current formal needs 

assessment?

[Probes: What were the school’s strengths? Weaknesses? What was the general climate of 

the school? What was the student achievement profile? What were the teachers like? What 

was the relationship between the school and the district? Were reform efforts underway 

when you assumed the principalship? If so, what were they? Were they comprehensive? 

How were they working? Have they changed? If so, what influenced the change(s)?] 

5. Were the actions to improve student achievement monitored? 

[Probes: What data were used? Would you describe the actions as an intervention and/or 

instructional change?] 
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 98

6. What programs, practices, policies were introduced to improve student achievement? 

When? Why were these selected? If multiple strategies are in use, what were early 

actions? What came later?

[Probes: On what basis were these selected? To what extent did the research base 

influence the selection of strategies? To what extent did school-based data influence the 

selection?]

7. What resources were used to support the actions taken to improve student 

achievement? Were additional resources needed? Where did they come from? Were 

they coordinated?

[Probes: Federal, state, district, philanthropic, or other sources? Use of both fiscal and 

human resources? Resources reallocated? School autonomy in budgeting?] 

8. How did staff react to the plans for improvement? To what extent were they involved 

in the decisions?

[Probes: Did staff support or resist the plans for improvement? How? How was staff 

resistance overcome? Were there any staff changes or turnover? If yes, what were the 

reasons for these staff changes? What is the process for replacing (hiring new) teachers? 

How did the staff turnover affect the process?]

9. How did you support staff as they sought to implement the change?

[Probes: Use of external assisters, staff development opportunities, schedule changes to 

facilitate grade-level and content sharing?] 

10. When new teachers come to the school, are there practices (e.g., formal or informal 

mentorships, special orientation, professional development) to introduce them to the 

key curriculum, instructional, and organizational activities? If so, when were these 

practices introduced?

11. Describe the formative and summative assessment system for student achievement 

at your school. How do you use data from these assessments? To what extent do 

measurable goals exist?

[Probes: How/where did you learn to use these data? Have there been any changes in the 

assessment system in the past 5 years? How does the school review these data in relation 

to implementation of the reform effort?] 

12. How did the district office react to the changes in the school?

[Probes: How did it support or inhibit reform actions? Did you encounter any resistance from 

the district office or school board in implementing the actions? If so, what actions were taken 

to overcome the resistance?] 
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 99

13. How were parents involved in planning and implementing the changes? How did they 

react to them?

[Probes: How did they learn about the changes? From whom? How did they support or 

inhibit reform actions? Did you encounter any resistance from them? If so, what actions 

were taken to overcome the resistance?] 

14. What programs or policies currently exist designed to ensure sustained 

achievement?

[Probes: When were these introduced? Do they have a research base? Are they 

comprehensive?] 

15. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of your school improvement 

efforts?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 100

Exhibit B.10

Experienced Teacher Focus Group Protocol

School code: Interviewer:

1. What grade (subject, for middle and high school) do you teach? How long have you 

taught? At this school? What brought you to this school?

2. What major school improvement efforts has your school engaged in over the last five 

years? Are they comprehensive (e.g., do they integrate instruction, assessment, and 

professional development)? Why were these selected?

[Probes for turnaround schools: Who or what do you think was responsible for the 

turnaround in student achievement? Which of the efforts was most important for 

accomplishing the turnaround?]

[Probe for comparison schools: Which of the school improvement efforts had the most 

significant effects on student achievement? Who or what was responsible for this effort?]

[Probe at all schools for the existence of a research base and source of information about 

that base.]

4. Now, please tell me a little about what I would have seen had I come to this 

school five years ago.

[Probes: How would you characterize the student body? What was the school “vision?” 

Were there earlier efforts at reform? Please tell me a little about them and their success or 

failure.]

4. Are things different now? 

[Probes: The student body? The school vision?]

6. During the first year of implementing the major school improvement efforts, how 

was progress assessed? 

[Probes: By whom? Did the assessment include looking at the extent to which the vision 

was enacted in practice? How did the principal assess progress? How did teachers? Do 

similar assessments take place now? How is the school’s progress currently assessed?]

6. What would have happened to the school, principal, and teachers if the school did 

not meet its achievement targets in the past? Is it the same now?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 101

7. How did teachers react or respond to the changes in school improvement efforts?

[Probes: Were any teachers particularly supportive? If so, how did they show their support? 

Did any teachers resist the changes? If so, how was the resistance dealt with?]

8. What support did teachers receive to help them successfully implement school 

improvement efforts? When? How were the teachers motivated to participate in the 

reform? 

[Probes: Help from people outside the school (e.g., model developers, consultants)? 

Professional development? Opportunities to meet as grade-level or content teams? Teacher 

incentives?]

10. Describe the assessments used to measure student progress. To what extent do 

measurable goals exist?

[Probes: When were they instituted? How often are they administered? Has this changed? 

Was training provided in analyzing and using data? If so, who provided the training? What 

happens with the information from the assessments?]

[Probes: Schoolwide, grade-level, or subject area? Were data used for instructional change? 

To provide individualized support to students? Are they currently used in the same way?]

10. Is there a pacing schedule? When was it initiated or revised? Does it help you with 

your instruction? Is it monitored? If so, by whom? What happens if you are not on 

schedule?

11. In the past, was there common planning time? Has the schedule changed in the last 5 

years? If so, when?

[Probes: Grade-level planning? Subject area planning? Cross-disciplinary planning? Were 

data introduced? If yes, what data? Do the results lead to changes in classroom practice? 

Does the school schedule support collaboration?]

12. What resources were used to support the actions for improvement? If so, how have 

the resources been used? How were they coordinated?

[Probes: Purchase supplemental classroom materials? Extend professional development? 

Establish new positions to support the changes? Extend the school day?]

13. When you came to the school, what orientation and support were given? Has this 

changed for new teachers?

14. Are there factors that help or hinder the ongoing improvement of the school? What 

are the main distracters you feel that keep you from achieving school goals?

[Probe for specific distracters, which can range from interruptions to parent problems]
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 102

15. How were parents involved in planning and implementing the changes? How did they 

react to them?

[Probes: How did they learn about the changes? From whom? How did they support or 

inhibit reform actions? Did you encounter any resistance from them? If so, what actions 

were taken to overcome the resistance?] 

16. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of your school improvement 

efforts?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 103

Exhibit B.11

Guidance Counselor Interview Protocol

School code: Interviewer:

1. Tell me about your background.

[Probes: When did you come to the school? What is your educational background? How 

many years have you been a counselor? At this school? Did you have prior experience or 

specific training working with low-performing schools or students?]

2. What is your role in the school? In school improvement efforts?

[Probes: Who do you interact with?]

3. What major school improvement efforts has your school engaged in over the last five 

years? Are they comprehensive? Why were they selected?

[Probes for turnaround schools: Who or what do you think was responsible for the 

turnaround? Which of the efforts was most important for accomplishing the turnaround?]

[Probe for comparison sites: Which of the school improvement efforts had the most 

significant effects on student achievement? Who or what was responsible for this effort?]

[Probe at all schools for the existence of a research base and source of information about 

the base.]

4. How did staff react to the plans for improvement? 

[Probes: Did staff support or resist the plans for improvement? How? How was staff 

resistance overcome? Were there any staff changes or turnover? If yes, what were the 

reasons for these staff changes? What is the process for replacing (hiring new) teachers? 

How did the staff turnover affect the process?]

5. How was the school staff supported to implement the report efforts? Who provided 

this support?

[Probes: What professional development is available to staff? How are external assistance 

providers involved? Administrators? District staff?]

6. What was the school climate like when you arrived?

[Probes: What were the school’s strengths? Weaknesses? What were the teachers like? 

What was the relationship between staff like? Between staff and students? What was the 

relationship between the school and the district?]
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 104

7. Has the school climate changed over the last 5 years? If so, in what ways? Who or 

what were the catalysts for these changes?

8. Please describe the level of parental involvement. What factors contribute to the level 

of parental involvement you described?

[Probe for specific examples of parental involvement in reform efforts, curriculum decisions, 

and presence in the school. Probe for changes in the approach to encouraging parental 

involvement.]

9. Describe the formative and summative assessment system for student achievement 

at your school. How do you and other staff members use data from these 

assessments? To what extent, do measurable goals exist?

[Probes: How/where did you learn to use these data? Have there been any changes in the 

assessment system in the past 5 years?]

10. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of your school improvement 

efforts?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 105

Exhibit B.12

New Teacher Focus Group Protocol

School 

code: Interviewer:

1. What grade (subject, for middle and high school) do you teach? How long have you 

taught? At this school? What brought you to this school?

2. Are you aware of any school improvement efforts that occurred before you came to 

this school? Are they comprehensive (e.g., do they integrate instruction, assessment, 

and professional development)? Why were these selected?

[Probes for turnaround schools: Were you aware of the turnaround in student achievement? 

Who or what do you think was responsible for the turnaround? Did a research base and 

sources of information about that base exist?]

[Probe for comparison schools: Which of the school improvement efforts had the most 

significant effects on student achievement? Did a research base and sources of information 

about that base exist?] 

3. What are the two or three most important strategies for improving student 

achievement? How were they introduced? In what venues? By whom? What is their 

focus?

[Probes: Curriculum? Instructional practices? Student assignments? To what extent did 

teachers and staff support those actions? How did they show support (e.g., formal votes)? 

Do the strategies have a know research base?]

4. What is the “vision” for the school? How is the vision communicated? Has the vision 

been modified since you came to the school?

5. How are teachers evaluated? Are teachers held accountable for results? What 

happens if a teacher does not produce the desired results? What data are used to 

determine whether the teacher has produced the desired results?

6. What support do teachers receive to help them perform?

[Probes: Help from people outside the school? School leadership?]

7. Please tell me more about the professional development at your school. What topics 

are covered? Who chooses the topics?

[Probes: Is professional development school-, grade- or subject focused? Do individual 

teachers select from a menu of topics?] How is it delivered? [Probe for workshops, 
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 106

coaching, etc.] Where is it delivered? When is it delivered?

8. How are students evaluated? How are students motivated to participate in the 

learning process? What rewards are available for student accomplishments (beyond 

report cards—e.g., “student of the month,” other public recognition)? On what basis 

are students rewarded?

9. Describe the assessments used to measure student progress. When were they 

instituted? How often are they administered? Has this changed? Was training 

provided in analyzing and using data? If so, who provided the training? What 

happens with the information from the assessments?

[Probes: Schoolwide, grade-level, or subject area? Were data used for instructional change? 

To provide individualized support to students? Are they currently used in the same way? To 

what extent did measurable goals exist?]

10. Is there a pacing schedule? Does it help you with your instruction? Is it monitored? If 

so, by whom? What happens if you are not on schedule?

11. Is there common planning time?

[Probes: Grade-level planning? Subject area planning? Cross-disciplinary planning? What 

data were introduced? Did the results lead to changes in classroom practice? Does the 

school schedule support collaboration?]

12. When you came to this school, what orientation and support were you given?

13. How are parents involved in planning and implementing changes at the school?

14. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of your school improvement 

efforts?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 107

Exhibit B.13

Parent Focus Group Protocol

School 

code:

Interviewer

:

No. of 

participants:

Interviewer

:

1. For turnaround schools: We are visiting this school because it has demonstrated 

important gains in academic outcomes. Were you aware of this improvement? 

Who or what do think was responsible for the change?

For comparison schools: We are visiting this school because it has engaged in 

school improvement efforts. Were you aware of such efforts? Who or what do you 

think was responsible for initiating these efforts?

2. What grades are your children in? Over what period have any of your children 

attended the school?

3. In general, how do you feel about the school? Has your impression changed over 

time? If so, what caused the change?

4. Since the time when your first child attended the school, have you noticed any 

changes in the school? If so, please describe them.

[Probe: How teachers and principals work—or do not work—with parents, student work, 

teacher quality instruction, physical plant.]

5. To what extent are you involved in school activities? Do you believe you are welcome 

in the school? Do you believe you have input into school goals?

[Probe: classroom activities, PTA, school improvement team, other volunteer activities.] 

6. Do you think school personnel encourage parents to get involved? If yes, can you 

give an example of how parents are encouraged?

7. How do you learn about school accomplishments, challenges, or failures? What 

information is presented?

[Probe: Does the principal communicate regularly with parents? If so, how (telephone calls, 

regular newsletters or letters, e-mail or e-letters)? Do teachers communicate with parents 

regularly? If so, how (telephone calls, regular newsletters or letters, e-mail or e-letters)?
OMB No. 1875-0222-v.3 Approval expires 12/31/2008

Appendix B 108

8. What is the school’s reputation in the district? Does this differ from other schools in 

the district? If so, how?

9. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of the school’s improvement 

efforts?
Appendix C 109

Exhibit B.14

School Improvement Plan (SIP)/Leadership Team Focus Group Protocol

School code: Interviewer:

Participant Title(s):

1. Tell me about your background.

[Probes: When did you come to the school? What is your educational background? How many years 

have you served in this role? At this school? Did you have prior experience or training working with 

low-performing schools or students?]

2. What major school improvement efforts has your school engaged in over the last five years? 

Are they comprehensive (e.g., do they integrate instruction, assessment, and professional 

development)? Why were these selected?

[Probes for turnaround schools: Who or what do you think was responsible for the turnaround? 

Which of the efforts was most important for accomplishing the turnaround?]

[Probe for comparison sites: Which of the school improvement efforts had the most significant 

effects on student achievement? Who or what was responsible for this effort?]

[Probe at all schools for the existence of a research base and source of information about that 

base.]

3. How did teachers react or respond to the changes in school improvement efforts?

[Probes: Were any teachers particularly supportive? If so, how did they show their support? Did any 

teachers resist the changes? If so, how was the resistance dealt with?]

4. Describe how the school improvement team is involved in planning and initiating school 

improvement plans.

[Probes: Who is involved in planning school improvement plans? What is the team’s role in planning 

efforts? What is the process for planning school reform? For initiating improvement plans?]

5. What information is used to develop school improvement plans?

[Probe for types of data used, how the data is used to develop plans, and specific examples of using 

data to develop plans or assess impact of strategies. To what extent do measurable goals exist?]
Appendix C 110

6. What resources were used to support the actions for improvement? If so, how have the 

resources been used? Were they coordinated?

[Probes: Purchase supplemental classroom materials? Extend professional development? Establish 

new positions to support the changes? Extend the school day?]

7. What support did you provide teachers to help them successfully implement school 

improvement efforts? When? How were the teachers motivated to participate in the reform?

[Probes: Help from people outside the school (e.g., model developers, consultants)? Professional 

development? Opportunities to meet as grade-level or content teams? Teacher incentives?]

8. Is there anything else I should know to tell the story of the school’s improvement efforts?
Appendix C 111

APPENDIX C—SITE ABSTRACTS

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 112

Freedom Elementary School.................................................................................................... 113

Lincoln Elementary School...................................................................................................... 118

Mill Elementary School ............................................................................................................ 124

Stratford Elementary................................................................................................................ 129

Swift Middle School.................................................................................................................. 134

Walker Academy....................................................................................................................... 140

Weston Elementary School ...................................................................................................... 145

Dogwood County Middle School ............................................................................................. 150

Martin Elementary School....................................................................................................... 156

Chelsea Elementary School...................................................................................................... 162

Cooke Elementary School ........................................................................................................ 167
Appendix C 112

Introduction

The following individual school site abstracts are succinct accounts of the information collected 

in the 11 school visits. They were developed by the study evaluation team around a common 

framework to produce uniformly structured descriptions of each school’s key outcomes and 

activities. Accountability test results are included in the abstracts. Hence, for some schools 

Reading tests results are reported whereas for other schools English Language Arts results or 

both Reading and English Language Arts results are reported. Mathematics results are reported 

for all schools. As noted earlier, school names are fictitious to protect confidentiality 

commitments.
Appendix C 113

Freedom Elementary School

Overview

Freedom Elementary School sits in the middle of a 1960s vintage, federally funded housing 

development, east of a river. The school has consistently, since at least 2000, served a population 

of low-income (82–97 percent eligible for the federal school lunch program), African-American 

(99–100 percent) students in grades K–5. August 2002 saw the arrival of a new principal; a year 

earlier a new superintendent of schools joined the school district. Freedom staff and students 

have labored under many of the societal ills that afflict so many urban schools: neighborhood 

crime, drug use, and poverty.

Achievement Pattern

Freedom School exhibited relatively quick, dramatic, and sustained improvements in student 

achievement from 2002 through 2007. Over a four-year period, students moved from 29 percent 

proficient in reading and 42 percent in mathematics to over 95 percent proficiency in both 

subject areas. (See Exhibits C.1 and C.2.) While the school district overall also showed marked 

improvements in both reading and mathematics during this period, the districtwide gains were 

not as dramatic or as quick as those of Freedom. Within three years (by 2005), the district 

effectively caught up to the state’s average student performance in reading and mathematics. 

Freedom entered improvement status under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the 

2001–02 school year. It made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for the first time in the 2004–05 

school year and has continued to make AYP since.

There are no obvious counter-explanations in demographic changes to account for Freedom’s 

dramatic improvement. While there was a large influx of students from a nearby closing school 

serving a similar population of students in 2006, this was well after Freedom achieved its 

dramatic improvement in student performance. Furthermore, while disciplinary incidents rose 

during the year of the new student influx, student achievement remained at near 100 percent 

proficient and well above the state mean. The student population has otherwise remained stable 

over time.

School Activities

Over six years, Freedom received significant new funding resources, including a state 

partnership grant for successful schools and federal Title I and 21st-Century Community 

Learning Centers grants. The state grant began in the 2003–04 school year and was funded at 

$125 thousand per year. The school received a 21st-Century Community Learning Centers grant 

that began the year following the end of the state grant (2006–07), continuing through the 2008–

09 school year. These funds were used to reduce class size, build community partnerships, move 

to block scheduling, run an after-school program and a Saturday academy, hire instructional 

coaches in mathematics and language arts, and add 30 minutes of reading each day. Data 

gathered as part of the district-mandated weekly benchmark assessments were analyzed by a data 
Appendix C 114

team, led by the principal. These data were publicly shared with the school community. The 

school also implemented behavioral incentives and housed state health and behavioral authority 

staff in the gym. These staff provided counseling and other services to as many as 70 children 

and families. There were some important state and district actions occurring over this period. The 

state’s accountability system identified Freedom as a school in need of improvement and 

provided resources to do so (the state grant). The district identified the current principal as 

someone capable of motivating the school community and gave her the tools, resources, and 

guidance necessary to enact her vision of school improvement. The district aligned school 

curricula to state standards, sought accreditation for all schools, required weekly assessments for 

schools in improvement status, and required Voyager reading (a scripted reading program) in all 

elementary schools in grades K–2. For a chronology of critical events, see Exhibit C.3.

Additional Facts Reform grant expired in 2001–02. There is little evidence that the school’s CSR 

program contributed to its later success. Also, the teachers’ union supported improvement by 

funding professional development activities designed to develop a professional learning 

community at Freedom. They also sponsored and funded the TAKE 1 program that put teachers 

on the track to national board certification.
Appendix C 115

Exhibit C.1

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Reading
Appendix C 116

Exhibit C.2

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Mathematics
Appendix 117

Exhibit C.3

Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Freedom Elementary School (K–5)
Appendix C 118

Lincoln Elementary School

Overview

Lincoln is a K–8 school in a southern county. The economic condition of the community is 

extremely poor. In addition to employment provided by the coal industry and the services it 

requires, the majority of jobs are in education and social services. The teaching force is very 

stable with little turnover at this school. The school has approximately 350 students as of the 

2007–08 school year. The number of children eligible for the federal school lunch program has 

hovered slightly under 75 percent for seven years, and attendance has been in the 90 percent 

range. The vast majority of students are white, with a Hispanic and black population of less than 

1 percent. The principal has been with the school for six years as of 2007–08 and is committed to 

making this the best school in the country. Over the previous ten years, there was inconsistent 

leadership, which included the eventual abandonment of a comprehensive school reform effort. 

In addition to the strong principal, the school has a committed staff and substantial community 

involvement.

Achievement Pattern

From 2002 through 2007, reading and mathematics performance generally improved at the 

school, as well as districtwide and statewide (see Exhibits C.4 and C.5). At Lincoln over this 

period, students scoring proficient or better increased by 30 percentage points in reading and 18 

percentage points in math. Yet, the pattern of results is different across the two subjects. In 

reading, while the initial performance of the school was considerably lower than district and state 

performance, slow-and-steady performance gains (except for 2005–06) reduced these gaps 

considerably by 2007 (see Exhibit C.4). In contrast, nearly all of the mathematics achievement 

improvement occurred during one year when the percent scoring at the proficient level rose 

dramatically from 34 to 61 percent (see Exhibit C.5). This school has met all adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) standards for each of the past five school years, as of 2007–08.

A factor to note in mapping and interpreting achievement changes for this school is that the 

averages shown in Exhibits C.4 and C.5 are based on testing for only two out of the school’s nine 

grades and may at least partially reflect a cohort effect. It appears from these data that the cohort 

of students enrolled in grades 4 and 7 and tested in the spring of 2005 may have been 

academically stronger than the students in grades 5 and 8 that year. The former cohort had 10 

percentage points of growth in reading as compared to the prior year’s fourth- and seventhgraders. Then, in the spring of 2006, when this group of students was in the fifth and eighth 

grades, these students showed a huge gain of 61 percent scoring proficient or better as compared 

to the prior year’s fifth- and eighth-graders, only 34 percent of whom scored proficient or better. 

Thus, this cohort of students showed considerable gains in reading in the spring of 2005 (as 

fourth- and seventh-graders) and then in math in the spring of 2006 (as fifth- and eighth-graders). 

Similarly, the next cohort of students showed a decline in reading in 2006 and then in math in 

2007.
Appendix C 119

This school did not have to contend with changes in the student population. Available data show 

a fairly stable rate of students eligible for the federal school lunch program. Enrollment has been 

stable with changes of only 2 to 4 percent. In the last 60 years, there has been little change in the 

school district’s demographics. Many of the teachers as well as their parents went to local 

schools, and there is little movement out of or into the school community. The state emphasizes 

local control, with each school having a site council that has considerable authority over school 

policy and operations. However, the state and district exert considerable influence by leading an 

effort to align the curriculum with the state standards and academic performance testing and by 

introducing instructional programs.

School Activities

Upon her arrival at the school in 2001, the principal set a new standard of commitment, 

dedication, and action, according to respondents interviewed for this study. In the first year, she 

worked to develop her relationship with the school site council that hired her, the school 

improvement management team she organized in the school, the school faculty, for which she set 

high standards, and the parents. She welcomed parents but also made clear that she was now 

running the school, not them. She also set high standards for student attendance and behavior.

One of her initial tasks was to align the curriculum with state standards and performance testing. 

In support of this district-led effort, Lincoln teachers began working with other teachers in the 

district to align the curriculum with state standards and to develop instructional sequencing and 

pacing guides. These efforts were considered instrumental in making instruction more efficient.

Decisions in this school became more data-driven in that changes were made based on test 

results, and school staff contributed to the development of solutions. In response to the 2003–04 

test results, the principal emphasized professional development and encouraged teachers to use 

more differentiated instruction. Work groups were established in each content area to reflect on 

and implement best practices in classrooms. In support of this effort, the principal offered 

additional release time for professional development beyond that provided by the district. Staff 

development resources were provided by a regional educational cooperative, the district, a local 

university, and a private foundation. Foci for staff development included using open-ended 

questions in assessments and increased use of technology in the classroom.

Many of these policies and practices continued in subsequent years. Important events in 2004–05 

included a focus on differentiated instruction and multiple intelligences. Same-sex classes were 

instituted for math, science, and language arts, with staff indicating that this reduced discipline 

problems. Challenges were identified and addressed through a distributed leadership model by 

which groups studied the situation and developed solutions.

The use of assessments to generate changes in instruction became more prominent in 2005–06 

with the districtwide introduction of Achieve 3000, a computer-based reading program that 

diagnoses a student’s reading level. Teachers became more focused on open-ended responses to 

better prepare students for state tests. The following year, a Response to Intervention process was 

introduced to provide continuous assessment of student progress and modification of teaching 

strategies.
Appendix C 120

Parent and community involvement was a very large part of the school’s overall improvement 

strategy. Parents and community members shared common ideas with school staff about the need 

for reform and the direction that reform should take. Involvement has been fairly constant at this 

school over time. Efforts include an active parent-teacher organization (PTO), outreach efforts, 

and parent communication that includes test score information. For a chronology of critical 

events see Exhibit C.6.

Additional Fact

As of the 2007–08 school year, most teachers have less planning time than in the previous year, 

and a new math curriculum has been implemented.
Appendix C 121

Exhibit C.4

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Reading
Appendix C 122

Exhibit C.5

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Mathematics
Appendix C 123

Exhibit C.6

Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Lincoln Elementary School (K–8)
Appendix C 124

Mill Elementary School

Overview

One of six National School Change Award winners in July 2005, Mill (pre-K–6), with an 

average of 650 students from 2001 to 2007, boasts a newly renovated facility a few miles from 

the downtown section of a large city in a township with a small town feel. 25 A sports theme—

”We Are Champions”—unifies the hallways. Football and basketball graphics anchor a 

multitude of classroom and grade-level bulletin boards showing data graphs, standards, and 

examples of student work. These first impressions demonstrate the school’s “no excuses” 

attitude and its attempts to prevail over a student poverty rate of 77 percent. Teachers often 

related stories of the student hardship stemming from their students’ home life (e.g., incarcerated 

parents, drug use, some students being expected to get themselves to school).

Achievement Pattern

Once one of the lowest-performing among the ten elementary schools in the district, Mill 

experienced a single-year spike (from fall 2001 to fall 2002) that put it above state and district 

averages.26 Since this initial surge, Mill’s achievement has been generally more than sustained at 

these new levels of performance. In both English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, the 

school’s performance continued to grow but then showed some decline in the most recent years. 

In both subjects, however, Mill has continued to exceed the district average, suggesting that its 

growth from the fall of 2002 was school-specific rather than simply resulting from more general 

trends. In math, despite some declines from the fall of 2004 to 2007, the school has consistently 

and substantially outperformed the average for the state as well as for the district, starting with 

fall of 2002 testing (see Exhibits C.7 and C.8). By fall 2007, Mill continued to sustain its earlier 

significant achievement gains and was the district’s top-performing elementary school in math 

and third top performer in ELA.

While there have been some changes that impact the student populations, these do not appear to 

be the driving factor behind Mill’s improvement. There have been some enrollment fluctuations, 

marked by slight declines in the last two years examined. All English learner students within 

Mill’s attendance area have attended Stratford (an elementary comparison site for this study) 

since 1998–99 when the district established a cluster program.27 Mill’s African-American 

population has declined from 27 percent in 2001–02 to 13 percent currently, due to the 2004 

gradual reversal of the 1981 desegregation court order to bus in students from the nearby city 

public schools.

 25 The Panasonic National School Change Award (held by Fordham University) is a prestigious award recognizing 

“schools that have significantly changed for the better.” Its application process is extensive, and schools must 

provide documentation across 16 specific criteria.

26 The state test was re-normed for the fall 2002 test cycle and may have had an impact on the increases in 

achievement, which were observed statewide. At the same time, Mill outgrew the state and district in that year. 

27 Prior to the fall 2003 test cycle, the scores for these students were reported by Stratford. Yet this should not have 

impacted Mill’s gains, since Mill transferred only between one and three students prior to 2003.
Appendix C 125

School Activities

School respondents attributed the sustained increases in student achievement to an experienced 

principal who arrived in fall 2000 and immediately tackled discipline problems. For example, 

although the principal was not allowed to make changes for a six-month period (in accordance 

with district policy), she immediately reduced the recess from 30 to 15 minutes and required that 

students “earn” it by completing homework—an act that invoked indignation from many parents.

The principal created a culture of high expectations for all students, irrespective of their home 

lives, which was reinforced by data analysis, transparency, and accountability. All teachers have 

been required since 2003–04 to have prominently displayed and regularly updated “data boards” 

that show the progress of the class as well as individual students toward state standards. Teachers 

are also required to post agenda boards, updated daily, which explain the state standards and 

what students will learn during that session.

Specific actions prior to the fall 2002 achievement spike included the principal reassigning 

teachers (in 2001–02) across grade levels to stimulate collaboration and revitalize the 

professional climate. She also created instructional research teams to bolster vertical 

collaboration and encourage distributed leadership and ownership of instructional reforms. Just 

prior to the fall 2002 test cycle, the school also instituted “mini-looping” whereby students 

returned to their prior teacher to review the previous year’s standards and instruction to address 

summer break retention issues. The principal also conducted one-on-one conferences with each 

student to go over his or her prior state assessment results and to set high performance 

expectations.

With respect to curriculum, the principal expressed dissatisfaction with Success For All (SFA), 

which was in place at the time of her arrival, particularly because SFA “taught to the middle.” 

With help of an external consultant and research findings published by the National Reading 

Panel, the school developed its own reading and learning program to replace SFA. This program 

was piloted in January through April 2002, then fully rolled out in fall 2002. Elements of this 

locally developed program continued with the advent of Reading First, which started in fall 2003 

(and ended in June 2007). The school used Larry Ainsworth’s Five Easy Steps to a Balanced 

Math Program to support its math curriculum starting in 2002–03, a strategy that eventually 

became a districtwide requirement.

All of these efforts were heavily supported by a school-selected external consultant who 

supported Mill from 2001 to 2007 and literacy coaches who originated from Reading First. 

Through Reading First, the school also had a district-assigned consultant who focused on literacy 

components. For a chronology of critical events, see Exhibit C.9.
Appendix C 126

Exhibit C.7

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), English Language Arts

(Note: Double-line in the graph denotes the year in which the state assessment was re-normed.)
Appendix C 127

Exhibit C.8

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Mathematics

(Note: Double-line in the graph denotes the year in which the state assessment was re-normed.)
Appendix C 128

Exhibit C.9

Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08) Mill Elementary School (PK–6)
Appendix C 129

Stratford Elementary

Overview

Just a few miles from the downtown section of a nearby city, the area where this school is 

located quickly takes on a rural feeling, with subtle signs of poverty—run-down homes, an 

abandoned warehouse. With 669 students in 2007–08, Stratford (pre-K–6) has a predominantly 

white population (72 percent), with nearly equal distributions of African-American and Hispanic 

students (13 percent each). The new look of the renovated facility belies the high level of student 

poverty, with 82 percent of the student population eligible for the federal school lunch program 

(the second highest poverty school in the district). According to the teachers, many of these 

students endure a challenging home life, and the school nurse is the primary care physician for 

many students at Stratford. Students frequently require such basic necessities as shoes, coats, 

eyeglasses, and meals, which are sometimes purchased by staff: “We need to meet their basic 

needs before they can move on and learn,” noted one teacher.

Achievement Pattern

Initially designated as a comparison school for Mill, Stratford likewise experienced a dramatic 

increase in achievement from 2001 to 2002.28 However, this surge was not fully sustained in 

either English language arts or math in subsequent years (see Exhibits C.10 and C.11). Unlike 

Mill, Stratford’s relative ranking in performance between 2001 and 2007 compared with other 

schools in the district remained relatively static, even including 2001–02, when it experienced 

dramatic achievement increases.

Stratford has experienced demographic shifts outside of its control. For example, it was one of 

three cluster program sites within the district starting in 1998–99 that enrolled English learner 

students from other schools.29 Stratford also enrolled about 130 students from Mill in 2004–05, 

due to permanent redistricting to shift populations to relieve enrollment burden in the northern 

areas of the district.30 Coupled with declines of the existing enrollment, the school experienced a 

net jump of 105 students in that year. While the distributions by ethnic group remained largely 

the same, this resulted in a growth in the numbers of Hispanic and African-American students. 

Its student poverty rate increased from 69 percent in 2001–02 to 82 percent in the 2007–08 

school year.

 28 The state test was re-normed for the fall 2002 test cycle and may have had an impact on the increases in 

achievement, which were observed statewide.

29 Prior to the fall 2003 test cycle, the scores for these students were reported by Stratford. Subsequently, the scores 

were reported by the resident school.

30 The new attendance area for Stratford included 139 students originally in Mill’s attendance area; however, the 

district allowed sixth graders to complete 2004–05 at Mill.
Appendix C 130

School Activities

Stratford saw a change in school leadership in August 2000 and again in the spring of 2003. 

Also, nearly half of the teaching staff for the 2004–05 school year was new to the school (24 of 

52 teachers, and 18 of those 24 were first-year teachers), due to teachers voluntarily transferring 

to a newly opened school within the district and new positions to accommodate enrollment 

increases from the redistricting. Given these staffing changes, the researchers for this study were 

not yet able to uncover specific activities that occurred just prior to the jump in achievement 

between 2001 and 2002. However, school respondents did discuss subsequent reforms and 

contributing school characteristics.

Among the most prominent characteristics, according to the school respondents, was the new 

principal in 2003 who focused on research-based strategies and use of data, established top-down 

expectations of professional collaboration, and fostered a strong supportive culture with 

emphasis on community building. The principal also redistributed all teaching staff across 

different grade levels in 2004–05 to mitigate the inexperience of the new teachers, to revitalize 

the veterans, and to signal change. Mill also undertook similar reforms, although Mill appeared 

to undertake these changes earlier in the process and more firmly embed them in the school’s 

daily practices.

Stratford used its CSR funds to implement Success For All from 2000–01 to 2002–03. The 

school became heavily focused on literacy, with the start of the Reading First program in 2003–

04 and the district-mandated “Literacy Framework,” which emphasizes components found in the 

National Reading Panel research (e.g., phonics, vocabulary, phonemic awareness, 

comprehension, fluency, writing to communicate). In accordance with another district mandate, 

the school used Larry Ainsworth’s Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Math Program to support its 

math curriculum starting in 2005–06.

Contributing to these reform efforts was a very dedicated, caring staff (following the influx of 

new staff in 2004–05) that coalesced around a common theme: doing what was best for the 

students. It was generally perceived by school and district respondents that potentially resistant 

staff transferred to a newly opened elementary school in the district prior to the 2004–05 school 

year. By default, the remaining staff were receptive to the wave of changes that followed, 

resulting in minimal resistance. District respondents noted that Stratford benefited from the 

“clean slate” in teaching staff in 2004–05, which enabled the principal to build a positive school

climate with staff that embraced change. Conversely, it has taken time to train teachers to work 

with the school’s challenged student population.

Aside from providing professional development through the national Center for Performance 

Assessment consultants and providing a district-level Reading First consultant, the district’s 

earlier efforts seem to have played a peripheral role in the school’s improvement efforts, while 

permitting principals the flexibility to take reasonable risks. School respondents mentioned little 

or nothing of state or federal context, other than the requirements related to Reading First and 

Title I fiscal support. For a chronology of critical events, see Exhibit C.12.
Appendix C 131

Exhibit C.10

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), English Language Arts

(Note: Double-line in the graph denotes the year in which the state assessment was re-normed.)
Appendix C 132

Exhibit C.11

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Mathematics

(Note: Double-line in the graph denotes the year in which the state assessment was re-normed.)
Appendix C 133

Exhibit C.12

Chronology of Critical Events 2000 to 2007, Stratford Elementary (PK–6)
Appendix C 134

Swift Middle School

Overview

Situated next to the high school on a large flat plain in a rural area, Swift’s greatest challenge, 

according to several school respondents, is not only to educate its students but also to keep them 

from leaving the community for higher growth areas locally and beyond. With 663 students, the 

school’s population is roughly half African-American and half white, with 73 percent of the 

students eligible for the federal school lunch program. The school also has a relatively high 

percentage of special education students, ranging from 21 to 25 percent from 2000–01 to 2006–

07. Swift is a very rural and stable community, and there have been relatively few changes in the 

student population or teaching staff in recent years.

Achievement Pattern

Swift exhibited slow-and-steady improvement from 2001 to 2007–08. In English language arts 

and reading, the percent proficient was considerably below the statewide average in 2001, and 

the school’s students rose in both subjects to be on par with the statewide average by 2007 (see 

Exhibits C.13 and C.14). In math, the percentages of students scoring proficient or above on state 

assessments exceeded the statewide average from 2004 through 2007 (see Exhibit C.15). The 

school’s trend line is fairly similar to the district’s performance, as Swift serves approximately 

70 percent of students in grades 6 through 8 districtwide.31

School Activities

In the fall of 1999, a new principal began his six-year tenure at Swift. During the years prior to 

this new leader, school administration had been weak and fractured, and teachers felt completely 

unsupported, according to those interviewed for this study. In the new principal’s first two years 

as the school leader, he selected core staff focused on creating a more structured, cohesive, 

learning-focused atmosphere at the school. In particular, in his first two years as principal, he 

increased behavioral expectations (e.g., focused on teaching students schoolwide expectations, 

such as how to walk quietly in the halls; established consistent routines; and supported teachers 

in holding students accountable) and introduced block scheduling for math and language arts. He 

also required teachers, with the support of coaches, to analyze student data, gave teachers one 

period per week for common planning time, and shifted staff around to better suit student needs.

The school failed to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) in 2000–01 and 2001–02 and 

subsequently fell into Needs Improvement status for the following two years. During the two 

years in Needs Improvement, the school received additional school improvement funds from the 

state, which were spent on an in-school school improvement specialist position (filled by existing 

leadership staff) and additional training and professional development in Max Thompson’s 

 31 In addition to Swift, there are two other schools within the district that serve middle grades (a pre-K–8 school and 

a school serving grades 6–12).
Appendix C 135

Learning Focused model of instructional improvement that was spearheaded by a consultant 

from the local Regional Educational Services Agency (RESA). In the summer of 2002, this 

RESA consultant began training a specially selected group of teachers, who were regarded as 

role models by other school staff, in essential techniques and skills to enhance their instruction. 

Teachers reported feeling positively supported by the RESA consultant; however, she is no 

longer serving the school due to lack funding when the school came out of Needs Improvement 

status.

The strength and cohesiveness of the staff appears to have helped facilitate the school’s 

improvements. A benefit of the earlier years when administrative leadership was reported to have 

been weak is that the staff banded together and depended on one another because they 

represented the only continuity and stability during this period, according to the experienced 

teachers. A core of veteran teachers shared the responsibility for leading the school improvement 

efforts with the new principal and was trained by the RESA external consultant in “best 

practices.” This core of teachers implemented these practices in their own classrooms first, then 

trained their colleagues in these techniques and strategies, which included curriculum alignment 

and mapping, use of data for benchmarking and instructional decision-making, and cooperative 

learning techniques.

This core of teacher leaders continued to be the mainstay of the improvement effort and to 

bolster reform even when changes occurred in administrative leadership (such as a new principal 

in 2006–07) and state improvement funds were withdrawn.

Furthermore, the school increased its emphasis on inclusion of special education students into 

mainstream classes, exposing students to the same curriculum and skill standards as the general 

population. School improvement funds were utilized to hire paraprofessionals to augment the 

special education staff and to support the increased inclusion effort. After-school tutoring was 

also emphasized to help special education students keep up with the core curriculum. Teaming at 

the grade and subject levels enabled all faculty to work with and support the efforts of students 

with special needs. For a chronology of critical events see Exhibit C.16.
Appendix C 136

Exhibit C.13

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2001–07), English Language Arts
Appendix C 137

Exhibit C.14

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2001–07), Reading
Appendix C 138

Exhibit C.15

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2001–07), Mathematics
Appendix C 139

Exhibit C.16

Critical Events Chronology (1999–2000 to 2007–08), Swift Middle School (6–8)
Appendix C 140

Walker Academy

Overview

Walker (pre-K–12) is a charter school in a southern state. Formerly a private Christian school, 

Walker reopened under a public charter in 1998 with a predominantly uncertified teaching staff. 

As a charter school, it was not accountable to state performance standards prior to 2002–03. This 

school was challenged with high student, teacher, and principal turnover. Enrollment in grade 

levels tested (3–11) between 2002 and 2007 ranged from 17 to 22 students, with enrollment in 

K–12 ranging from 251 to 313 students. These low enrollment figures were accompanied by 

high rates of student mobility, with about one-third of students not enrolled in the school at least 

83 percent of the school year, according to state education agency data. In the same period, the 

proportion of African-American students increased from 9 to 16 percent, while that of white 

students decreased from 69 to 54 percent; the proportion of students eligible for the federal 

school lunch program ranged from 49 to 65 percent, staying above 60 percent from 2003 on. 

Average teacher experience ranged from 0.6 to 1.0 years. Teachers left the school often for better 

pay and benefits in surrounding districts. Walker had three changes in principal—first in summer 

2004, then in spring 2006, and again in summer 2006. The last principal change was 

accompanied by a wholesale release of the teaching staff on the part of the charter management 

organization; only four teachers from the prior year remained. Between 2001 and 2004, Walker’s 

school budget per pupil increased from $3,577 to $5,466.

Achievement Pattern

While the data show that student achievement peaked in 2005, it was not sustained. From 2003 

to 2005, the proportion of students attaining proficiency in reading rose 22 points (compared to a 

seven-point gain at the state level) and the proportion attaining proficiency in mathematics rose 

29 points (versus a 10-point gain at the state level). In spring 2005, Walker exceeded the statelevel proportion in reading by six points and fell two points short of state-level in mathematics, 

despite the fact that the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills proficiency standards were 

raised from prior years. However, between 2005 and 2006, Walker reading achievement declined 

by 15 points; between 2005 and 2007, mathematics achievement declined by 14 points. 

Ultimately, overall gains in reading and mathematics between 2003 and 2007 paralleled state 

gains (see Exhibits C.17 and C.18). Walker made adequate yearly progress (AYP) from 2002–03 

through 2005–06. In 2006–07, it did not make AYP in mathematics.

School Activities

Walker initiated several activities aimed at improving achievement after 2002–03, the year in 

which it became subject to state accountability standards. Walker applied for and received a 

Reading First grant and used it to implement Open Court Reading in grades K–3 in 2003–04. 

Walker also used the funds to hire a reading coach, three reading specialists, and two 

instructional assistants. The assistants worked with the coach and specialists to provide intensive 
Appendix C 141

intervention to struggling readers. During this year, teachers supplemented Open Court with 

other reading curricula. In 2004–05, the school obtained Open Court training for its teachers after 

the state mandated use of Open Court exclusively. Both the reading coach and Open Court 

training remained in place through the 2007–08 school year.

In 2004–05, a new principal, a former teacher and a key lead in school grant writing, was 

assigned at Walker. This principal worked closely with coaches and staff at the site to promote 

the use of data for instructional decision-making. Teachers collected Dibels Fluency assessment 

data, as required by Reading First. School staff also collected data using the Texas Primary 

Reading Inventory and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The principal and reading coach 

periodically reviewed the data to determine which standards needed to be addressed more 

extensively through instruction and intervention. This principal vacated her position two months 

prior to the end of the 2005–06 year for medical reasons. She was replaced by the prior principal 

for the remainder of the year.

In 2005–06, Walker received a Comprehensive School Reform grant, which it used to implement 

High Schools That Work, extend the focus on literacy into the secondary grades, and establish 

block scheduling.

In fall 2005, the charter management organization provided Walker with a scope and sequence in 

all grade levels and content areas that mapped the state content standards into six-week intervals. 

For 2005–06, the organization hired a mathematics curriculum specialist who revised the scope 

and sequence and provided professional development to teachers and continues to support the 

school. However, teachers noted that since 2002–03 Walker had not updated the mathematics 

curriculum, which was not aligned to state standards. The organization required use of earlier 

versions of the state accountability assessment three times per year as benchmark assessments. 

At the end of 2005–06, the organization released all but four teachers, so the new principal for 

2006–07 could hire her own staff.

The state provided reading technical assistants in 2003–04 and 2004–05. According to school 

staff, the assistant in the latter year was more effective than her predecessor. The assistant 

continues to serve the school. The state’s Region 10 Education Service Center provided a large 

majority of teachers to the site through an alternative certification program.

In 2007–08, the school also received state funds through the accelerated reading and 

mathematics initiatives based on the number of students underperforming on the state 

assessments.

In spite of the adoption of a research-based reading curriculum and a high school comprehensive 

school reform model, increased funding per student, extensive use of assessment data for 

decision-making, and coaching, the significant turnover in staff and students, small school size, 

and turnover in leadership confound attribution of achievement gains to specific reforms. For a 

chronology of critical events, see Exhibit C.19.
Appendix C 142

Exhibit C.17

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), English Language Arts
Appendix C 143

Exhibit C.18

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), Mathematics
Appendix C 144

Exhibit C.19

Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Walker Academy (PK–12)
Appendix C 145

Weston Elementary School

Overview

Weston Elementary School is a small, K–5, elementary school in a small city of a southern state. 

In 1999, the school became an arts magnet school, drawing mostly but not entirely from the 

surrounding neighborhood. The magnet program ended in 2003–04, though the name persists. 

The school has consistently served a population of low-income (85–90 percent eligible for the 

federal school lunch program), African-American (87–92 percent) students. To a visitor, the 

neighborhood does not appear to be particularly disadvantaged, but school staff warn that just off 

the main street, homes deteriorate and there are several public housing projects with crime and 

drug activity. The school itself is elegant, historic, and well preserved: Built in 1926, the main 

entry hall is flanked by two large staircases, the stone steps of which are worn with decades of 

students’ treads. A large brass chandelier lights the entry, and hardwood floors are found in 

many classrooms. The arts rooms, renovated with a federal magnet schools grant, are state-ofthe-art.

Achievement Pattern

Weston School exhibited quick, dramatic improvements in student achievement from 2002 to 

2004 and has continued to exceed or approximate statewide student achievement. In those two 

years, students at Weston moved from 43 percent proficient in reading and 47 percent in 

mathematics to over 90 percent in both subject areas. (See Exhibits C.19 and C.20.) During the 

same period, the school district overall showed substantial, but less dramatic improvements in 

both mathematics and reading. The district schools remain below the state average, while 

Weston has generally stayed above the state average since 2004. Weston has consistently made 

adequate yearly progress since the 2003–04 school year.

Demographic changes in the student population could be a contributing factor in accounting for 

Weston’s improvements. First, the school has been a magnet school for many years and draws a 

small but significant number of students from outside its neighborhood. Currently, about 25 

students come from outside the neighborhood. Second, though the demographic makeup of the 

school has remained largely constant, overall enrollment has declined dramatically from almost 

250 students in 2000–01 to only 175 in 2007–08. Many classes now have as few as 15 students. 

The principal attributes the decline to the school’s inability, with the loss of magnet grant 

funding, to provide transportation for students from outside the school’s neighborhood.

School Activities

During its first years as an arts magnet school (1999–2001), a substantial proportion of the 

school day at Weston was devoted to the fine and performing arts. This left little time for core 

academics and consequently, student achievement in mathematics and reading was low. While 

the “Big Show” in the spring was always a highlight, basic supplies and mathematics texts were 

often lacking. In 2001, the school district replaced the principal with a veteran principal known 
Appendix C 146

for turning around schools in the district. That same year, the state intervened and placed the 

school in the Partnership for Achieving Successful Schools (PASS) initiative. In a visit to the 

school, the state explicitly threatened to terminate teachers’ employment unless substantial 

changes were made and improvement was achieved. Under this threat of layoffs, the principal 

initiated several strategies, including regular use of data, targeted intervention, extended learning 

time, schoolwide disciplinary practices, and greater community involvement. School climate and 

school improvement also benefited from low student-teacher ratios.

Teachers use data regularly to guide and focus instruction. Every nine weeks, the school tests 

students, a practice initiated by the district. The data guide the topics of intersession instruction. 

Weston did regular benchmark testing while participating in PASS, but that was less widely used 

than the current district-driven process. Intersession instruction focuses on topics on which at 

least 75 percent of students had not demonstrated proficiency. The names of students who 

received perfect scores on the state Standards of Learning are posted at the front of the school. 

Faculty also use data to provide academic support to students as soon as it becomes evident that 

a student has not mastered the material.

Weston has used a year-round calendar since 2002–03. During each of the several three-week 

intercessions except summer break, instruction is offered for two of the three weeks. Ninety-two 

percent of students voluntarily choose to attend school during intersession. Weston also offers 

before-school and after-school tutoring opportunities for students.

Weston enforces a strict schoolwide behavior program. Early in the improvement period, staff 

jointly developed expectations detailing the use of homework folders, appropriate backpacks, 

pencil sharpening, classroom apparel, and even hallway behavior. Students today walk down the 

hallways with their hands behind their backs, having been told this is how “great thinkers 

walked.” These common disciplinary and behavioral expectations are drilled into students during 

the first week of school that teachers call “boot camp.”

The small class sizes and low student-teacher ratio facilitate some of the strategies employed at 

Weston. These changes may explain as much of the improvement in student achievement as any 

other single factor. Some classes are as small as 12 students. Others have as many as 18–20 

students. This was not a strategic design by Weston, rather a function of declining enrollment. 

One unintended consequence has been a high level of communication and collaboration among 

the staff. Teachers have a very high level of awareness of what is going on in each others’ 

classrooms, a strong sense of community, and a high level of mutual support. Staff are expected 

to be responsible for the well-being of the students; this extends beyond the school day.

Additional Fact

Despite its success, the school district may decide to close Weston in the near future due to its 

declining enrollment and the high costs of maintaining this facility.
Appendix C 147

Exhibit C.20

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Reading
Appendix C 148

Exhibit C.21

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Mathematics
Appendix C 149

Exhibit C.22

Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Weston Elementary School (PK–5)
Appendix C 150

Dogwood County Middle School

Overview

Dogwood County Middle School (grades 6 through 8), serves approximately 340 students in a 

rural area. In its town, most storefronts, such as the local gun shop, have long since shut down, 

cotton plants grow incidentally on roadsides, and the cotton mill provides an example of local 

industry. The county correctional facility sits not far from the school. The county also has one 

high school and one elementary school. Prior to 2003–04, the school was considered the worst in 

the area. Teacher supervision was limited, staff morale was low, and the district provided little 

monitoring or oversight of student performance. The building was “dilapidated” and generally 

run down. In 2003–04, the school reopened in a brand new facility. The new facility has large 

halls, high ceilings, and light streaming from large windows. Classrooms are built around a large 

library and media center. During the researchers’ site visit for this study, school and district staff 

noted that the new site increased staff and student morale and signaled a “new start.”

Achievement Pattern

After declines in reading, English language arts, and mathematics between 2002 and 2003, 

Dogwood demonstrated quick and dramatic achievement gains in all three areas between spring 

2003 and 2004. Dogwood sustained gains in reading and English language arts through 2007 

(see Exhibits C.22 and C.23), while losing most of its gains in mathematics (see Exhibit C.24). 

From 2003 to 2004 Dogwood gained 20 points in the percentage of students attaining proficiency 

or above in reading, and 29 points in the percentage attaining proficiency or above in language 

arts (77 percent proficient in both areas, compared to 84 percent in both reading and 78 percent 

in language arts statewide). By 2007, Dogwood came within 1 percentage point of both the 

statewide proficiency levels in reading (87 percent) and language arts (89 percent). Dogwood 

experienced a gain of comparable scale in mathematics from 2003 to 2004 (24 percentage points) 

and came within 5 percentage points of the statewide proficiency level (71 percent). These gains 

were largely sustained until 2007 when the percent proficient or above dropped to 56 percent 

compared to 73 percent statewide. Dogwood has met adequate yearly progress (AYP) since 

2004–05. Dogwood had stable enrollment and no student mobility during the entire period 

examined for this study.

School Activities

In 2001–02, the district began an effort to improve achievement by aligning its English language 

arts curriculum with state standards (with other content areas to follow). The district provided 

professional development to teachers for the resulting new curriculum guides, which included 

lessons, resources, and tools for teachers. In the same year, the school adopted a single-track 

year-round calendar and developed an intersession program providing remedial instruction in 

reading, language arts, and mathematics.
Appendix C 151

In 2003–04, Dogwood was assigned a new principal, the former assistant principal of Dogwood 

High School. The new principal immediately changed the focus of leadership at the school from 

a “facilities” focus to enhancing the teaching and learning environment for teachers and students. 

In January 2004, a new superintendent, who turned out to be very supportive of the initiatives of 

the new principal at Dogwood, was appointed.

The new principal addressed instruction, attendance, and discipline. He implemented the school 

improvement plan, which had been developed prior to his arrival by a district leadership team but 

was not being implemented. Teachers used achievement data to identify low-performing students 

for participation in intersession and remedial classes. Given excessive student absences (21 

percent of students were absent at least 15 days in 2001–02), poor discipline, and declines in 

student achievement, the new principal in 2003–04 instituted an incentive program for students, 

including limited cash awards and traditional student recognition activities. As a result of the 

program, attendance increased and discipline improved. The school adopted a formal attendance 

plan in 2005–06. In 2006–07, 11 percent of students were absent at least 15 days. In 2005–06, to 

maintain a schoolwide focus on instruction, the principal and assistant principal conducted 

classroom observations daily on an informal basis, as well as three formal observations of each 

teacher annually using a protocol provided by the state department of education.

In 2000–01, the district began aligning the curriculum and changed the school to a year-round 

calendar, but it hardly monitored student achievement. In 2002–03, the district implemented a 

districtwide attendance policy. Parents of students absent 10 days were required to meet with the 

district attorney, a social worker, and a school representative and could be fined or jailed. The 

combination of principal and district reform efforts resulted in a climate of increased 

expectations for all students and of collaboration and support among school staff. The district 

provided weekly professional development workshops for all teachers on differentiated 

instruction, developing a high-performing learning community, classroom management, and on 

curriculum alignment with state content standards since 2003–04. It also created separate reading 

and language arts classes at Dogwood because it recognized that middle school students required 

additional reading instruction. The district relinquished to Dogwood the responsibility for 

developing the school budget and selecting professional development activities. In 2006–07, the 

district required mandatory Monday meetings for professional development in teaching reading 

to middle school students. Meetings included book studies on differentiated instruction and 

district presentations on curriculum guides, tools, and resources. The district shared assessment 

data with the school board, students, parents, community, and local press. For a chronology of 

critical events see Exhibit C.25.
Appendix C 152

Exhibit C.23

School and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Reading
Appendix C 153

Exhibit C.24

School and State Student Achievement (2002–07), English Language Arts
Appendix C 154

Exhibit C.25

School and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Mathematics
Appendix C 155

Exhibit C.26

Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Dogwood Middle School (6–8)
Appendix C 156

Martin Elementary School

Overview

Martin Elementary is a pre-K through 5 school in a northern city public school system. Located 

in a southern section of the city on a small peninsula, this school is somewhat isolated 

geographically. The school is also very close to a neighboring county. For the 2007–08 school 

year, enrollment was 425 students. Of these students, 41 percent are black, 39 percent white, and 

16 percent Hispanic. Across the school district, approximately 90 percent of the students are 

black, 8 percent are white. Student mobility is constant, with more than one-third of the students 

entering and leaving the school during the year. Many properties near the school are rentals. Not 

too many years ago, most residents owned their homes. Safety concerns prevent the teachers 

from allowing the students to play on the school’s recently built playground. Drug dealing exists 

in the neighborhood, yet some respondents interviewed considered the school to be somewhat of 

a haven for its students. When a new principal arrived at the beginning of the 1999–2000 school 

year, he had to transform a dysfunctional school. There were nearly 2,000 office referrals. A 

culture of blame for low student achievement permeated the school. The school was on a list of 

the 10 worst schools for compliance with special education requirements. This brought added 

attention from a federal court monitor.

Achievement Pattern

From 2003 to 2007 the achievement levels in this school showed steady growth. Large gains in 

reading and math in 2004 were followed by continuous, though smaller improvements. The 

initial gain of 19 percentage points made the reading achievement level comparable to the district 

average, though still well below the state. Subsequent achievement gains were comparable to 

districtwide improvements (see Exhibit C.27). The pattern of math achievement was very similar 

(see Exhibit C.28). This school has met AYP every year in all achievement categories. AYP for 

attendance was met every year except for the 2005–06 school year.

This school was selected as a comparison school for another site in this study, Cooke. While 

achievement gains in Cooke substantially exceeded those shown for Martin through the data 

available at the time of sample selection (i.e., through spring 2005), Cooke dropped fairly 

substantially over the subsequent two years, while Martin achievement continued to grow. In 

retrospect, Cooke Elementary can be seen as a low-performing school that rose fairly 

dramatically (but then declined), while Martin has been able to sustain and continue its more 

gradual ascent.

This school experienced sharp demographic shifts from the 1999–2000 school year to the more 

recent school years. Total enrollment, racial composition, students eligible for the federal school 

lunch program, as well as students with disabilities have all fluctuated. In 1999–2000, the racial 

composition of the school was markedly different. At that time, the student population was 86 

percent white, 12 percent black, and less than 1 percent Hispanic. By the 2004–05 school year, 

the percentage of black students increased by a factor of three; Hispanic students made up 9 
Appendix C 157

percent of the enrollment, and white students decreased by 30 percentage points. At the same 

time, the percentage of students eligible for the federal school lunch program increased from 64 

percent to 82 percent. The percentage of students with disabilities was 14.5 percent. Over the 

next three years, the percentage of Hispanic students doubled to 16.5 percent, while the number 

of black students continued to increase, and the number of white students continued to decrease. 

The percentages of poor students and of students with disabilities decreased slightly during this 

period.

School Activities

The principal in charge of this school during the CSR award period arrived for the 1999–2000 

school year. After dealing with immediate student behavior problems, he began instituting new 

reforms for academic progress. By the 2001–02 school year, teachers had multiple years of 

experience with the Open Court curriculum and a better understanding of how to teach reading in 

grades K through 3. The Core Knowledge curriculum was implemented to improve instruction in

grades 4 and 5. Project Achieve was implemented to improve student behavior. Other reforms 

during that year included the creation of an Instructional Technology Integration Program to 

introduce technology into teaching. With the direct participation of teachers, the school selected 

and implemented the Core Knowledge model. The Project Achieve behavioral intervention 

program was implemented also. More teachers began using technology, for which they received 

training. The principal implemented programs to make learning more interactive. At the same 

time, according to teachers, he created a learning community among staff by giving them 

authority for selecting new teachers and creating an environment in which risks and failure were 

acceptable. This self-described change-agent principal left the schools at the same time the CSR 

grant expired and accepted a position as a director of coaching, training, and school support with 

a school leadership development organization.

The fall of 2005 brought a new principal. There was some staff turnover that year also. The new 

principal selected all new hires, in contrast to the previous principal’s policy of letting the 

school’s teachers select new teachers. Technology improvements continued, so that all teachers 

had whiteboards and laptop computers for instructional use. To support a learning community 

environment, the principal rearranged the schedule to allow more common planning time. 

Collegiality was also supported through participation of all teachers on the School Improvement 

Team. Work on a subcommittee required analyzing relevant data and developing strategies for 

improvement. Writing became a priority when Basic Constructed Response (BCR) assignments 

were mandated by the district. In 2007–08, more scripted science and social studies curricula 

were mandated. Hence, Core Knowledge was phased out. Project Achieve was discontinued 

when the program teacher left the school. Also of note, the new voluntary state curriculum had a 

direct influence on the school. The former principal required the school to align its curriculum 

with the voluntary state curriculum. For the new principal, district policy directly influenced the 

school curriculum. Core Knowledge was required for science and social studies, while Scott 

Foresman was required for math.
Appendix C 158

Additional Facts

Beginning with the 2008–09 school year, this school will add sixth-grade students, thus 

becoming an extended elementary school. Additional grades will be added over the following 

two school years to make this a K–8 school. Overcrowding may be an issue.
Appendix C 159

Exhibit C.27

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), Reading
Appendix C 160

Exhibit C.28

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), Mathematics
Appendix C 161

Exhibit C.29

Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Martin Elementary School (PK–5)
Appendix C 162

Chelsea Elementary School

Overview

Chelsea School (pre-K–8) is situated in a neighborhood that has gentrified over the last 10 years. 

Serving 278 students in 2007–08, Chelsea has changed drastically since the late 1990s, when it 

served over 1,000 students and had what interviewees referred to as “gang problems.” Chelsea 

enrolled 571 students in 2001–02 and had further enrollment declines in 2003–04 (of 28 percent) 

and 2004–05 (19 percent). Several interviewees noted that increased rents caused the declines, as 

couples without children replaced low-income families with children. Some families who moved 

out continued to send their children to Chelsea, but most did not. Through 2004–05, students 

were bused in from other neighborhoods. Teachers welcomed the end of busing, noting that other 

schools had been sending their lower-performing students. Between 2001 and 2007, the 

proportion of low-income students32 remained at or above 90 percent; the proportion of Hispanic 

students ranged from 83 to 90 percent, and English language learners ranged from 23 to 29 

percent.

School leadership was remarkably stable. The new principal in 2007–08 had worked at Chelsea 

for 30 years, just previously serving as assistant principal. The previous principal spent over 30 

years in the position. Teacher staffing was also stable, with average experience at least 13 years 

since 2000–01, though diminishing enrollment has compelled annual teacher reductions. As of 

the 2007–08 school year, Chelsea had 15 teachers.

Achievement Pattern

Chelsea demonstrated quick and dramatic achievement gains in both reading and mathematics 

between spring 2003 and 2007. From spring 2003 to 2005, the proportion of students meeting or 

exceeding state standards in reading increased by 30 percentage points to 63 percent (compared 

to a six-point gain at the district level and two-point gain at the state level), equaling the statelevel proportion and exceeding the district-level proportion by 15 points (see Exhibit C.30). In 

mathematics, from 2003 to 2006, the proportion of students meeting or exceeding standards 

increased by 55 points to 80 percent (compared to 22-point and 10-point gains by the district and 

state, respectively), ultimately exceeding the district-level proportion by 16 points and nearly 

equaling the state level of 82 percent (see Exhibit C.31). Chelsea made adequate yearly progress 

(AYP) in 2005–06 and 2006–07, exiting program improvement status, after failing to make AYP 

since 2002–03. By district mandate, Chelsea became a magnet “cluster” school focused on 

mathematics and science in August 2003. Unlike typical magnets in the district, a “cluster” 

school has attendance boundaries and offers a programmatic theme in collaboration with several 

other schools in its neighborhood. Families outside of attendance boundaries may apply for 

openings not filled by neighborhood students.

 32 Students eligible for the federal lunch program, living in institutions for neglected or delinquent children, 

supported with public funds in foster homes, or from families receiving public aid.
Appendix C 163

School Activities

Beginning in 2001–02, Chelsea began working closely with a community partner to provide 

extended day learning programs and increase parent involvement at the school. These efforts 

were sparked by parent concerns that students did not have a “safe haven” during after-school 

hours. Chelsea received two major grants, a five-year district grant (which was later extended for 

a sixth year) and two federal 21st-Century Community Learning grants (in 2002–03 and 2005–

06, the latter for $100,000), both to fund before- and after-school programs. These programs 

provided students with intensive tutoring, remediation, and enrichment and were predominantly 

staffed by teachers. Funds were also used to sponsor quarterly parent events—a reading night, a 

math and science night, a sports event, and “Kermes,” a Mexican tradition celebrating student 

completion of a school year. These events still take place at Chelsea. Parents are also members of 

the school council established in the 1980s, which includes the principal, two teachers, six 

parents, and two community members. The school council approves the School Improvement 

Plan and school expenditures. A parent group, facilitated by the community partner, meets 

weekly and provides classroom volunteers, helps with grading papers, assists English learners, 

and helps plan family events. Parents also take computer classes at Chelsea once a week. Parents 

interviewed expressed satisfaction with the current principal—indicating she maintained the 

same leadership style as the prior principal—and the level of communication from the school.

In 2001–02, Chelsea also received a federal GEAR UP grant, funded through 2006–07. Staff 

used funds to provide teacher professional development in analysis of student data. Chelsea also 

hired a professor from a nearby university to consult and work with teachers on data analysis and 

use of student data to guide improvement efforts. In 2002–03, the principal and assistant 

principal decided to focus on teacher quality by hiring “more qualified” teachers as teachers who 

were not in line with their reform plans left. They also provided more ongoing supervision, 

including weekly meetings and formal walkthroughs. In 2003–04, Chelsea received a three-year 

Reading First grant and introduced a new reading program by mandate of the district Area 

Instructional Office. In 2005–06, Chelsea adopted new mathematics curricula—Everyday Math 

(K–5) and Connected Math (6–8). However, even though the school adopted pre-packaged 

curricula, the principal gave teachers individual flexibility on how to teach reading and 

mathematics, so long as student achievement remained high.

The district, through the Area Instructional Office, provided a mathematics coach, two literacy 

coaches, and two English learner specialists who conducted workshops and modeled lessons for 

teachers. Coaches and specialists visited the school at least biweekly. In 2005–06, district 

coaches provided professional development on use of the new mathematics programs. They 

conducted formal walkthroughs to ensure that curricula were being implemented, although one 

teacher noted using the adopted mathematics curriculum only when observed. For a chronology 

of critical events, see Exhibit C.32.
Appendix C 164

Exhibit C.30

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Reading
Appendix C 165

Exhibit C.31

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2002–07), Mathematics
Appendix C 166

Exhibit C.32

Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Chelsea Elementary School (PK–8)
Appendix C 167

Cooke Elementary School

Overview

Cooke is a K–5 elementary school in the located in the southwestern section of a city. The 

school’s neighborhood is both racially and economically diverse. Although the vast majority of 

residents in the surrounding ZIP Code have a high school level education or less, there are some 

college graduates, including a few with advanced degrees. Grants are available to encourage 

small business development, and incentives are available to attract new residents. As of the 

2007–08 school year, the school enrolls approximately 300 students. More than 90 percent are 

eligible for the federal school lunch program. Slightly more than half are black (56 percent), one 

quarter are white (25 percent), and 9 percent are Hispanic. The percentage of black students is 

much lower than the overall district rate of 88 percent. One of the community partners indicated 

that many of the students have families in which someone is afflicted with substance abuse 

problems, and “a lot of the students are living with their grandparents because their parents are 

drug-addicted.” Drug dealers and prostitutes transact their business in the neighborhood around 

the school.

Achievement Pattern

The net increase in the percentages of students scoring at the proficient level or higher was 18 

percentage points in both reading and math from 2003 to 2007. However, the patterns are best 

described as dramatic increases followed by at least partial decline. In reading, gains over two 

years raised the percent proficient by 36 points and virtually identical with the state level. But 

this increase was followed by a 20-point decline over the next two years, bringing the school’s 

performance level well below the state average (see Exhibit C.33). Similarly, in math, two years 

of large gains were followed by another two of sharp declines (see Exhibit C.34). The school 

made adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the first four years represented in the exhibits. At the 

end of the 2003–04 school year, it exited the state school improvement process. The school did 

not make AYP in 2007 due to poor performance among students with disabilities and students 

eligible for the federal lunch program.

This school experienced some demographic shifts in recent years. Since 2002–03, the percentage 

of Hispanic students has more than doubled. Also, the percentage of black students increased by 

6 percentage points, while the percentage of white students decreased by 9 percentage points. 

Students with disabilities have consistently made up 15 to 18 percent of all the school’s students. 

This exceeds the district-level average of 13 percent for elementary schools.

School Activities

According to almost everyone interviewed during the site visit, the leadership of the school 

principal was the major influence on this school’s improvement. Upon her arrival in fall 2002, 

the principal quickly established herself as the school leader. Policies and practices, such as how 

to enter and exit the school, were put in place to improve student behavior. A “Very Good Store” 
Appendix C 168

was established, so students could redeem credits for good behavior. Because parent behavior 

had been an issue, parents were no longer permitted to roam the halls at will. These initial 

actions helped to make the school environment more conducive to learning.

The principal established herself as the instructional leader through her presence in the classroom 

and by improving the skills of her teachers. Her methods included routine classroom 

walkthroughs with feedback and an emphasis on data-driven decision-making. The main source 

of information was the attendance and achievement data book that each teacher kept on his or her 

class. The principal required the data book and compelled the teachers to have current 

information and to regularly analyze it.

Teachers were supported and a climate was created in which teachers could openly exchange 

ideas and seek support or guidance from each other as well as from the principal. While it was 

clear that the principal was the ultimate decision maker, all teachers had input into the operation 

of the school. All teachers served on a School Improvement Plan committee. A clear focus on 

students by the administration and staff guides the school.

For its curriculum, the school used Direct Instruction for reading and math through the 2005–06 

school year. Professional development support from the district declined after the district 

switched from Direct Instruction. A teacher-led study at the school found a lack of alignment 

between the curriculum and the voluntary state curriculum, so a change request was made to the 

district administration. After a one-year delay, Open Court Reading (OCR) and Scott Foresman 

Math (SFM) were implemented for the 2006–07 school year. Teachers who had been in the 

school more than five years had a tougher time with the shift because they had become 

accustomed to the scripted nature of Direct Instruction. In the conversion to Open Court and 

Scott Foresman, teachers received professional development over the summer for Open Court 

and used professional development days during the year for Scott Foresman. Also, teachers 

participated in after-school professional development in the new curricula; the principal funded 

this with Title I funds.

Teacher turnover tended to be low, except for two time periods. Approximately one-third of the 

teachers left the school at the same time the principal arrived. The principal described her new 

teachers as “eager to learn at every moment.” Other notable staff changes occurred in 2006–07 

when three new teachers came to this school, and the school had two fewer classroom teachers 

than in previous school years. The decline of two teachers in this small school represented 10 

percent of the classroom teachers. For a chronology of critical events see Exhibit C.35.
Appendix C 169

Exhibit C.33

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), Reading
Appendix C 170

Exhibit C.34

School, District, and State Student Achievement (2003–07), Mathematics
Appendix C 171

Exhibit C.35

Critical Events Chronology (2000–01 to 2007–08), Cooke Elementary School (PK–5)