Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools:

Comprehensive Assessment and Planning Template for States

Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools:

Comprehensive Assessment and Planning Template for States

This template is designed to facilitate the work of the state-level personnel in assessing the status of each area of state responsibility and for determining priority action steps based on current or planned implementation of activities. Technical assistance providers can be helpful in supporting this review. This template can help state-level personnel translate the recommendations of the IES Practice Guide Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools into actions and policy options, encourage systematic identification of existing strategies or gaps, and establish a coordinated and coherent statewide support system. This template lists areas of responsibility that users might want to adapt for their particular context.

Area of State Responsibility

/

In place/Needs to Be Developed

/ evidence
(actions, processes or products completed or under development) /

Potential Next Steps

Examples

The state vetted and provided a list of turnaround partners. (A6)

/ In Place / The state provided the list to districts. / None

The state has created a pipeline of turnaround principals. (D1)

/ Needs to be developed / Notes from meetings discussing strategies but no action steps defined. /

Determine if state will develop program or collaborate with existing program to create pipeline.

A.Turnaround Leadership

  1. State leaders are creating a supportive policy and political environment for turnaround work, (e.g., soliciting and securing union support for turnaround).
  2. State leaders communicate a sense of urgency regarding turnaround work.
  3. State offices (e.g., Title I, special education, etc.) collaborate on policies for identifying and working with the lowest performing schools.
  4. The state has developed partnerships (e.g., other state agencies, regional service centers, institutions of higher education, and businesses) to provide expertise in school or business turnaround to support working with the lowest performing schools.
  5. The state establishes regulations and policies that provide districts and schools increased autonomy to make dramatic changes needed for school turnaround.
  6. The state optimizes social media to communicate directly with diverse constituencies.
  7. The state identifies and profiles schools within the state that are successful school turnarounds.
  8. The state provides guidance on the selection of turnaround partners with proven competencies in turning around the lowest performing schools.
  9. The state shares research and emerging promising practices with districts and schools.

B.Accountability Measures

  1. The state has robust and transparent performance metrics for school effectiveness.
  2. The state clearly communicates accountability measures for school effectiveness to districts and schools.
  3. The state holds districts accountable on an ambitious timeline (e.g., demonstrates clear measures of behavior changes and academic gains within first year).
  4. The state’s accountability measures include academic and non-academic outcomes.
  5. The state maintains effective systems to track and monitor turnaround efforts, including site visits by both state and district liaisons.
  6. The state analyzes district and school level data to determine progress and identify needs.
  7. The state communicates to districts the process for identifying the lowest performing schools.
  8. The state communicates to the public about status and progress of its lowestperforming schools.
  9. The state reviews policies, procedures, and regulatory structures to identify those that limit the flexibility of schools to make dramatic changes.

C.Research-Based Curricular and Instructional Resources, Including Assessments

  1. The state provides information and guidance on the selection of curricular and instructional resources and assessments.
  2. The state develops and communicates policies and guidelines for evaluating the quality of teaching and learning.
  3. The state provides rigorous common interim assessments and/or question banks to create assessments, and ensure districts administer them every 6 to 9 weeks.

D.High Quality of Staff and Leadership

  1. The state,in a coordinated effort with districts and educator preparation programs,has developed a principal pipeline for turnaround leadership.
  2. The state,in a coordinated effort with districts,has developed a teacher pipeline especially to staff its lowest performing schools.
  3. The state, in a coordinated effort with districts, provides incentives (e.g., extra compensation, academic improvement bonuses) to encourage recruitment and retention of turnaround principals and effective teachers.
  4. The state has established policies to strengthen conditions for teaching (.e.g., teacher tenure and evaluation policies) in the lowest performing schools.
  5. The state has established policies to strengthen conditions for learning (e.g., teachers and students have necessary resources, classrooms are comfortable and clean) in the lowest performing schools.
  6. The state provides supports and access to resources for districtsand school leaders in the lowest performing schools.
  7. The state develops and disseminates practical talent management tools and procedures.
  8. The state aligns professional development with teacher evaluation (e.g., professional development topics or strategies are based on teacher needs as determined through teacher evaluations).
  9. The state aligns professional development with common core state standards.
  10. The state provides access to continuous development of leaders (e.g., university based leadership programs, continuing professional development, district hiring, evaluation of principals, etc.).
  11. The state, in coordinated effort with districts, ensures that principal training programs align with leadership standards.
  12. The state, in coordinated effort with districts, ensures that principal training programs respond to local district needs.
  13. The state, in coordinated effort with districts, ensures that principal training programs reflect the realities of the job in the lowest performing schools.
  14. The state, in coordinated effort with districts, selects or retains skilled principals equipped to lead a turnaround school and conversely remove ineffective principals.
  15. The state encourages districts to create structured time for collaboration and data analyses.

E.Needs Assessment and Progress Monitoring

  1. The state promotes policies and access to resources to further the culture of engagement between schools, districts, and the state and to move from compliance to collaboration.
  2. The state aligns technical assistance resources with school and district needs assessments and provides guidance to districts and schools on the alignment of technical assistance with school needs.
  3. The state develops capacity-building strategies that help schools diagnose weaknesses.
  4. The state provides extensive on-site support in the diagnosis process.

F.External Partners and Intermediaries

  1. The state provides guidance on how to choose and contract with turnaround providers.
  2. The state provides resources to help districts and schools set goals and monitor progress when working with technical assistance and intervention providers, including expert teachers, instructional specialists, state department of education staff, intervention developers, and private consultants.
  3. The state provides training for technical assistance providers to support districts and the lowest performing schools.
  4. The state engages external stakeholders to drive and support local school boards.

G.Financial Adequacy

  1. The state provides guidance in how federal and state funds can be used to support school improvement.
  2. The state provides support for determining appropriate costs of education services (e.g., lead partners, consultants, technical assistance providers).
  3. The state provides guidance on budget management to district and schools.
  4. The state provides resources to support budget management to districts and schools.
  5. The state re-allocated resources to strengthen district and school leadership effectiveness in its lowest performing schools (e.g., School Admin Managers who take over principal administrative responsibilities).
  6. The state advocates that districts and schools allocate funding in to build long-term capacity and sustain changes.