school redesign grant statewide report · web viewreading first case narratives template primer...

Massachusetts School Redesign Grant

Report of Preliminary Statewide Findings

Submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

September 2012

Report of Preliminary Statewide Findings September 2012

Project StaffGreta Shultz, Project Manager/Senior Research ManagerLonnie Kaufman, Senior Research ManagerAnnette Hunt, Research ManagerMolly Breitbart, Research AnalystSteven Ellis, Director, Research and Evaluation

This report is prepared by the project evaluator for the School Redesign Grant project, Fund Codes 511 – 767, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group

The University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute is the public service, outreach, and economic development unit of the University of Massachusetts President’s Office. Established in 1971, the Institute strives to connect the Commonwealth with the resources of the University through services that combine theory and innovation with public and private sector applications.

The Institute’s Research and Evaluation group specializes in applied social science research, including program evaluation, survey research, policy research, and needs assessment. The Research and Evaluation group has designed and implemented numerous innovative research and evaluation projects for a variety of programs and clients in the areas of education, human services, economic development, and organizational development.

University of Massachusetts Donahue InstituteResearch and Evaluation Group100 Venture Way, Suite 5Hadley, MA 01035-9462(413) 587-2400(413) 587-2410 to send a faxwww.donahue.umassp.edu


School Redesign Grant Contents

Contents

Tables and Figures.......................................................................................................................iExecutive Summary......................................................................................................................iI. Introduction...............................................................................................................................3

Organization of the Report and Notes on Style.................................................................7II. Methodology............................................................................................................................8

Evaluation Design..............................................................................................................8Data Collection Activities...................................................................................................9Document Review..............................................................................................................9Study Participant Interviews.............................................................................................10

District Leaders...................................................................................................10ESE District Liaisons...........................................................................................10Principals, Teachers, and School Staff...............................................................10

Principals’ Survey............................................................................................................11Analysis........................................................................................................................... 11Limitations........................................................................................................................ 11

III. Results...................................................................................................................................12

A. Overview: Perspectives on Redesign..................................................................12B. Perceptions of SRG Associated with Improvements...........................................17

B.1. The District’s Role in Redesign.................................................................................17District support tends to take the form of passionate and engaged – yet isolated – individuals...........................................................................................................17Call for coordinated, system-wide efforts............................................................18Perceptions of the extent and nature of district involvement in redesign, and implications.........................................................................................................20Autonomy: Principals’ staffing autonomy is seen as critical to redesign success (sustained momentum and stable workforce).....................................................21Budget, curriculum and scheduling autonomy valued by principals....................23Other valuable aspects of district involvement: Networking opportunities, partnerships and coaching..................................................................................23Partnerships: valued district component and need for increased district involvement.........................................................................................................23Coaching: a multi-purpose solution to challenges inherent in redesign (staff turnover, principal mentorship, teacher growth, student growth).........................24Additional views on effectiveness—and needed changes—in district-level support............................................................................................................................ 25



“The district is like a ghost”: Call for improved understanding of schools (increased time and more direct interaction between districts and schools).......28Additional suggestions for effective district support: targeted feedback and differentiated PD.................................................................................................28Sensitivity to political issues................................................................................29

B.2.Leadership in Redesign.............................................................................................29Principals’ Role: Expectations and Burnout........................................................30Distributed Leadership........................................................................................32Challenges of Distributed Leadership.................................................................33Implications.........................................................................................................34Strategies to enhance the effectiveness of distributed leadership models..........35

B.3. School Redesign and Instruction..............................................................................36Coaches and Specialists.....................................................................................36Synergy: Results accrue through integrated efforts and strategies.....................37Formal Collaboration and Planning Time............................................................38Extended Learning Time and Restructuring the School Day...............................39Restructuring the Schedule: Principals’ Needs for Technical Assistance and Coaching.............................................................................................................40Tiered Instruction: Calls for PD and for Differentiated Support...........................41Collection and Use of Data to Inform Instruction.................................................42Professional Development: One Size does Not Fit All........................................43

B.4. Approaches to Supporting Social-Emotional Health under Redesign.......................43Ambiguity about schools’ capacity to influence change in this arena..................44Perceived effectiveness of SRG-supported strategies........................................44Examples: key factors include onsite services, key support staff positions, professional development, and partnerships.......................................................46Synergy of SRG strategies yields perceived impact on school culture and students’ attitudes and beliefs about school........................................................47Additional areas of need.....................................................................................47

B.5. Focus on Sustainability: Planning Needed...............................................................47C. Feedback to ESE: Implementation of the School Redesign Grant program........49

Sensitivity to Competing Demands on Level 4 Schools...................................................50Sensitivity to Politics and Public Perception.....................................................................50ESE’s Accountability to Schools and Districts..................................................................51Requests for ESE to Spend More Time in Schools..........................................................51School Redesign Tools and Processes...........................................................................52Monitoring Site Visits.......................................................................................................52Measurable Annual Goals (MAGs)..................................................................................54SRG Applications.............................................................................................................54

Renewals............................................................................................................54A call for Support with the Application and Reapplication Processes..................55



Role of the ESE Liaisons: Opportunities for Enhanced Roles and Responsibilities.........55Further support................................................................................................................56

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................57Appendix A: Research Plan......................................................................................................61Appendix B: District Leaders Protocol and Interview Guide................................................69Appendix C: Survey Instrument...............................................................................................74Appendix D: Open-ended Responses.....................................................................................93


School Redesign Grant Tables and Figures

Tables and Figures

Table 1. Effectiveness of SRG/Turnaround Strategies................................................................................13Table 2. Staff Turnover in the First Year of Redesign................................................................................14Table 3. Extent of Positive Impact of Staff Turnover..................................................................................14Table 4. Financial and Human Resources are Sufficient for Turnaround Goals.........................................15Table 5. Perceptions of Three-year Time Limit in Relation to Change and Goals.....................................16Table 6. Supports Provided to the Principal by the District........................................................................18Table 7. Autonomy: Need for District Involvement....................................................................................21Table 8. Effectiveness of School- and District-based Coaches and Specialists..........................................24Table 9. Frequency of Activities Needed to Further Progress Toward Goals.............................................25Table 10. Usefulness of District Supports...................................................................................................26Table 11. Elements of District Support Found Useful.................................................................................26Table 12. Limitations of District that Make Support Less than Effective...................................................27Table 13. Expectations of Redesign Principals............................................................................................31Table 14. Effectiveness of School- and District-based Coaches and Specialists........................................36Table 15. Extended Time Option Used by School......................................................................................39Table 16. Impacts of Extended Time Strategies..........................................................................................39Table 17. Primary Challenges to Consistent Implementation of Tiered Instruction...................................41Table 18. Effectiveness of Strategies for Students’ Social, Emotional, and Health Needs.........................45Table 19. Usefulness of ESE’s Support in Progress Towards Change........................................................49Table 20. Usefulness of ESE’s Redesign Tools for Promoting Change......................................................52


School Redesign Grant Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) contracted with the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute (UMDI) to design and conduct a program evaluation of the School Redesign Grant (SRG) program. The purposes of the evaluation are:

to provide ESE with the type of formative feedback that would support continuous improvement in school, district, and ESE implementation of SRG

to capture evidence of short- and (eventually) long-term changes, developing explanations of changes (progress, success) that are likely associated with elements of SRG

From January through June 2012, the evaluation conducted the following data collection activities: document review of extant program materials, including School Redesign Plans and relevant application and monitoring reports; background interviews with ESE program staff, including district liaisons; individual and small group interviews with district leaders responsible for aspects of redesign efforts; site visits to a small sub-set of SRG schools for the purpose of conducting interviews with principals and school staff members; and an online survey of School Redesign principals. A full discussion of the results is contained in the body of the report; selected key findings are presented below.

Key Findings

The power of the school redesign initiative lies in the synergy of a range of turnaround strategies, employed within the framework of a clear vision and focused goals.

One of the goals of the evaluation is to capture educators’ perceptions of the effectiveness of various elements of the school redesign approach to turnaround. Of interest are the various elements of the federal turnaround models, ranging from replacement of school leaders to efforts to reconfigure teacher collaboration, and a host of other strategies. Overall, study participants tend not to point to any one strategy as solely explanatory of their experience with redesign. In fact, the degree of similarity in response to questions attempting to distinguish between the federal models—“transformation” and “turnaround,” for example—is remarkable. A notion emerges from the data that the integration of the multiple turnaround strategies counts most. Analysis suggests that while certain strategies do tend to rise to the surface––exemptions and allowances negotiated with teachers unions, for example, or the principal’s hiring and budget autonomy—it is, largely, the synergy that results from turnaround strategies being employed together in multiple ways in the service of a broader goal that matters.

School redesign calls for a systematic approach to school change: coordination, integration, and alignment are the cornerstones of significant and sustainable improvement. To date, districts demonstrate underdeveloped system-wide capacity with respect to school redesign. Rather, district support tends to take the form of passionate and engaged––yet isolated––individuals.

UMass Donahue Institute Research and Evaluation Group 2


While efforts to systematize supports to schools are evident across the Commonwealth, the study suggests that, largely, redesign efforts still hinge on the efforts carried out by designated—and, typically, isolated-—individuals in districts. The degree to which these individuals are integrated into more coherent and cohesive district systems necessarily varies. Overall, however, evidence suggests a need to reinforce district-level capacity so that knowledge and awareness are disseminated more broadly and are translated into efforts to effect change at the school level. The study suggests that, while schools have had to undergo a process of comprehensive self-analysis and reflection, parallel processes have not yet been introduced at the district level.

“The principal can’t do it alone”: redesign calls for new models of school leadership, differentiated professional development, and a variety of leadership capacity-building steps.

School redesign principals demonstrate a broad range of approaches to leading turnaround processes, including the adoption of distributed leadership models. A range of distributed leadership models is being developed across the Commonwealth, and while the effectiveness of these models varies from site to site, distributed leadership is cited by principals as one key mechanism to protect against “burnout.” Additionally, distributed leadership models serve as mechanisms to support teacher growth, communicate and foster buy-in to a school-wide mission, and reinforce the likelihood that changes will be extended and sustained in schools. Given the complexity of demands facing redesign principals, calls for increased and differentiated support are evident: customized tailored professional development that takes into account principals’ specific skill sets, professional development/mentoring targeted toward administrative and managerial skills (such as how to budget effectively and how to manage a complicated school schedule), and the establishment or expansion of collaborative forums/networks that allow principals and other instructional leaders to learn from one another’s experience.

Sustainability of change after the funding period is a top concern for principals: the loss of key staff figures high on their list of concerns. Principals tend to feel that the three-year time limit has negatively influenced their ability to plan for sustainability.

While principals and teachers point to certain practices that they believe will be sustained after the funding period (e.g., collegial practices, cultural shifts), SRG has created and supported critical staff positions, such as instructional specialists and coaches. Many principals, staff, and district leaders worry about losing staff members who are instrumental to the redesign effort and have contributed significantly to success. Addressing the possible loss of instructional specialists, staff in several schools explained a perceived need for more, not fewer, specialists in the schools, especially in ESL and special education. The possibility of losing specialists is demoralizing for teachers who recognize the cycles of improvement and decline that have historically plagued their schools. Overall, leaders believe that three years is an insufficient amount of time to achieve rapid growth and work toward the sustainability of change. Principals typically possess insufficient knowledge about “what happens next” (after the grant period, after their schools exit Level 4 status). They look to the districts and to ESE for information, a plan, and/or answers to their questions. Leaders also call for a longer funding period.

Overall, study participants appreciate the ongoing support that ESE provides. Broadly, district and school leaders request that ESE develop greater understanding of the realities that plague Level 4 schools.

School and district leaders appreciate ongoing communication with ESE and the technical support provided. Against that backdrop, there is a call for ESE to spend more time in schools so as to better understand individual school needs and to provide ongoing, customized support. Principals highlight the need for ESE to be aware of a)



the political sensitivities surrounding school redesign (e.g., perceived inequities, experiences of failure) and b) the multiple initiatives at work in many Level 4 schools.


School Redesign Grant Introduction

I. Introduction

In 2010, Massachusetts launched its first Request for Proposals inviting districts to apply for School Redesign Implementation Grant funding. These funds were made available initially through a combination of Massachusetts’ FY09 federal School Turnaround Grant (STG) and funds allocated through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)/US Department of Education School Improvement Grants (SIG) program. The funds were intended to support districts in their implementation of one of four federally defined school intervention models: “turnaround,” “restart,” “transformation,” or “closure.”

Massachusetts had recently instituted important policy changes relative to school improvement. The 2010 Act Relative to the Achievement Gap signified a renewed and expanded focus on improving student learning in traditionally underperforming schools. Specifically, the Act provided districts greater power and authority with respect to these schools, and it designated districts as the official point of entry for the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE). Largely, the Act signified that districts would be held accountable for reversing the patterns of underperformance that had plagued their systems in the past. “Turnaround” was the new order of the day. Additionally in 2010, ESE established the Framework for District Accountability and Assistance. The Framework introduced a five-level scale to identify schools based on need and incorporated the Conditions for School Effectiveness, thereby linking accountability and assistance measures.

In this context, Massachusetts configured its School Redesign Grant (SRG) to reflect three overriding principles:

1. Districts would be the point of entry for departments.

2. Only a limited number of schools would receive funding, so that the Department could provide substantial and meaningful support.

3. Reciprocal accountability: every step toward improvement would be met with assistance from the Department.

This report—a preliminary look at emerging findings from the first two School Redesign Grant (SRG) cohorts—provides feedback to the Department on its implementation of the grant thus far, and offers perspectives from educators “on the ground” who live the realities of “turnaround” on a daily basis. The report brings to light information about the ways in which the policies and principles described above have been implemented and with what perceived effects. Issues for further consideration are highlighted.

Overview of the Four Federal Models and the Massachusetts Cohorts

A full description of the School Redesign Implementation Grant program can be viewed online at http://www.doe.mass.edu/grants/grants11/rfp/511.html For clarity, the requirements of each of the four required federal intervention models (available at the same site) are presented in their entirety below:


http://www.doe.mass.edu/grants/grants11/rfp/511.html


Turnaround model: A turnaround model is one in which an LEA must--(i) Replace the principal and grant the principal sufficient operational flexibility (including in staffing,

calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach in order to substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates;

(ii) Using locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness of staff who can work within the turnaround environment to meet the needs of students,(A) Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent; and(B) Select new staff;

(iii) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the turnaround school;

(iv) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development that is aligned with the school’s comprehensive instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure that they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies;

(v) Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is not limited to, requiring the school to report to a new “turnaround office” in the LEA or SEA, hire a “turnaround leader” who reports directly to the Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer, or enter into a multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added flexibility in exchange for greater accountability;

(vi) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State academic standards;

(vii) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual students;

(viii) Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide increased learning time (as defined in this notice); and

(ix) Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented services and supports for students.

Transformation model: A transformation model is one in which an LEA implements each of the following strategies:(1) Developing and increasing teacher and school leader effectiveness.The LEA must--

(A) Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement of the transformation model;(B) Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for teachers and principals that--(1) Take

into account data on student growth (as defined in this notice) as a significant factor as well as other factors such as multiple observation-based assessments of performance and ongoing collections of professional practice reflective of student achievement and increased high school graduations rates; and (2) Are designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement;

(C) Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in implementing this model, have increased student achievement and high school graduation rates and identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professional practice, have not done so;

(D) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development (e.g., regarding subject-specific pedagogy, instruction that reflects a deeper understanding of the community served by the school, or differentiated instruction) that is aligned with the school’s comprehensive instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies; and

(E) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a transformation school.

(2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies. The LEA must--



(A) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State academic standards; and

(B) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of individual students.

(3) Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools. The LEA must--(A) Establish schedules and strategies that provide increased learning time by using a longer school day, week, or year schedule to significantly increase the total number of school hours to include additional time for (a) instruction in core academic subjects including English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography; (b) instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education, including, for example, physical education, service learning, and experiential and work-based learning opportunities that are provided by partnering, as appropriate, with other organizations; and (c) teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development within and across grades and subjects; and

(B) Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.

(4) Providing operational flexibility and sustained support. The LEA must--(A) Give the school sufficient operational flexibility (such as staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates; and

(B) Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated external lead partner organization (such as a school turnaround organization or an EMO).

Restart model: A restart model is one in which an LEA converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education management organization (EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous review process. (A CMO is a non-profit organization that operates or manages charter schools by centralizing or sharing certain functions and resources among schools. An EMO is a for-profit or non-profit organization that provides “whole-school operation” services to an LEA.) A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the school.

School closure: School closure occurs when an LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. These other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available.

Massachusetts awarded funding to the following schools (Cohort I) in August- September 2010:



District School Redesign Model

Boston Blackstone Elementary School Turnaround

Boston Dearborn Middle School Transformation

Boston Greenwood (Elihu) Leadership Academy Transformation

Boston English High School Transformation

Boston Harbor School Turnaround

Boston J.F. Kennedy Elementary School Transformation

Boston Holland Elementary School Transformation

Boston Orchard Gardens K-8 School Turnaround

Boston Dever Elementary School Turnaround

Boston Trotter Elementary School Turnaround

Chelsea Chelsea High School Transformation

Springfield M. Marcus Kiley Middle School Transformation

Massachusetts awarded funding to the following schools (Cohort II) in July 2011:

District School Redesign Model

Boston Burke High School Turnaround

Boston UP Academy Charter School of Boston (formerly Patrick F. Gavin Middle School)

Restart

Fall River John J. Doran Elementary School Transformation

Holyoke Morgan Elementary School Transformation

Holyoke William J. Dean Technical High School Restart

Lawrence Arlington Elementary School Transformation

Lowell Charlotte M. Murkland Elementary School Transformation

Lynn E.J. Harrington Elementary School Transformation

Springfield Alfred G. Zanetti Montessori Magnet School Transformation

Springfield Brightwood School Turnaround

Springfield Chestnut Accelerated Middle School Transformation

Springfield Elias Brookings School Turnaround

Springfield German Gerena Community School Transformation

Springfield Homer Street School Transformation

Springfield John F. Kennedy Middle School Turnaround

Springfield White Street School Turnaround

Worcester Chandler Elementary Community School Transformation

Worcester Union Hill School Transformation



School names reflect September 2012 names provided on respective district public school websites. Fuller descriptions of each school’s and district’s Redesign Plans, funding levels and additional relevant materials can be found at http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/sss/turnaround/grants/

Organization of the Report and Notes on Style

While the two primary research questions suggest a logical demarcation in terms of discussion, the themes presented in the report are necessarily intertwined. The report is structured to address, first, perceptions of SRG associated with improvements, delineating discrete elements of school redesign (the district role, leadership, instruction, approaches to support social-emotional health, and sustainability). There is, however, considerable overlap in the findings across these areas, necessitating cross-referencing in the text. Similarly, feedback to ESE is interwoven in the discussions of perceptions of SRG associated with improvements. In all these instances, the reader is directed to cross-reference.

Responses to open-ended survey questions and excerpts from interviews are presented in paragraph and bulleted format. Open-ended responses in the text have been modified for grammar and spelling and identifying marks have been removed; otherwise, they are displayed verbatim. Bulleted quotes are italicized; passages in the body of text are shown between quotation marks. An alphabetized list of all open-ended survey responses is attached as Appendix D. These responses have only been modified to the extent that identifying marks were removed.

The evaluation research plan is attached as Appendix A.The district leaders’ interview protocol is attached as Appendix B.The Principals’ Survey instrument is attached as Appendix C.

Please note that a complementary report is available under separate cover, titled: School Redesign Grant: A Boston Public Schools Brief. Funded jointly by ESE and the Boston Foundation, the report takes a look at one subset of schools included in this larger study. The report offers a big picture view of patterns and trends across SRG schools in Boston.


http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/sss/turnaround/grants/

School Redesign Grant Methodology

II. Methodology

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) contracted with the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute (UMDI) to design and conduct a program evaluation of the School Redesign Grant (SRG) program from January through July 2012. School redesign grants were awarded to 30 schools in 9 districts across the Commonwealth. Two cohorts of grantees are included in this evaluation: Cohort One, beginning in Fall 2010, and Cohort Two, beginning in Fall 2011.

Evaluation Design

The purposes of the evaluation are:

to provide ESE with the type of formative feedback that would support continuous improvement in school, district, and ESE implementation of SRG

to capture evidence of short- and (eventually) long-term changes, developing explanations of changes (progress, success) that are likely associated with elements of SRG

To meet these primary objectives, the following research questions were asked:

Primary Research Question 1: How can ESE best support and manage the SRG project?

This question addresses ESE’s implementation of the program thus far and in the future. Areas of focus include ESE’s application processes and requirements, progress monitoring, and ESE’s implementation support.

Secondary questions in support of this primary question include:

o To what extent and in what ways have tools and procedures employed in the start-up phases proven useful and reliable? What modifications are suggested?

o Which lessons learned should inform ESE’s continued implementation of the SRG program? What, if any, implications for program managers and policy-makers are suggested?

Primary Research Question 2: In what ways and to what extent is SRG associated with schools’ turnaround progress and improvements in student success?

This question works toward developing explanations for the success––or lack thereof––of turnaround strategies in SRG schools. It explores the relationships between various inputs (e.g., newly hired staff, district’s support role) and perceptions of progress or success over time regarding school-wide improvement and student achievement.




o How have schools implemented their turnaround plans to date? What strategies have been supported by SRG funds to date?

o Which strategies and/or factors are associated with schools’ progress (implementation and progress toward benchmarks) and success, as defined by the program? Which factors have helped or hindered implementation, and under what conditions?

o When and how are the various turnaround models associated with improvements?

o Which elements of each of the turnaround model(s) are associated with positive or negative change?

o To what extent and in what ways do school and district characteristics influence progress?

o What short- or long-term implications, if any, do the study’s findings suggest for ESE, school, and district leaders? For policymakers?

Multiple methods were employed in order to collect sufficient data to answer research questions, including interviews (both site visits and phone interviews were conducted), document review, and a survey of SRG principals. UMDI took a cooperative approach to the evaluation process that involved ESE staff in the development of data collection instruments by engaging with them in discussion of the ways in which the instruments would help to answer the specific research questions, and allowed them final approval of the instruments prior to their use. UMDI also conducted a review of grant program materials including grantees’ applications, renewal applications, and Monitoring Site Visit Reports.

Notes on the use of “progress” and “effectiveness”

For the purposes of this evaluation, definitions of “progress” and “effectiveness” were left intentionally broad and subjective so that participants’ perceptions and thoughts about these indicators could emerge. Interviewees and survey respondents interpreted these terms and identified examples of them based on experience and historical context, sometimes with reference to ESE’s officially recognized measures of these indicators. UMDI used information from MSV reports, applications and renewal applications, and MAGs to inform site visits and phone interviews.

Data Collection Activities

Before initiating the data collection required for the report, identified district leaders and school principals received communication from the evaluation team and from the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education regarding the purpose and scope of the evaluation. They were notified that UMDI would be making contact to arrange for interviews and site visits. At the same time, UMDI collected documents from ESE and held several phone meetings with ESE staff to discuss emerging issues, ask questions, and develop a working knowledge of SRG processes and Level 4 schools.

Document Review

In order to develop knowledge of the individual grantees, the evaluation team reviewed applications and renewal applications (as appropriate), as well as MSVs and any other relevant information (e.g., news articles, ESE’s online profiles). Profiles were used to inform interviews with district leaders, principals and other school leaders, and teachers. MSV categories and results were employed to compare school profiles in order to begin to



formulate initial understandings of how SRG strategies work– similarly and differently– across the 30 redesign schools.

In addition to gathering documents relevant to the grantees, the evaluators reviewed federal documents that describe school turnaround programs as well as academic literature that addresses school redesign in general.

Study Participant Interviews

UMDI conducted 16 interviews with 25 district leaders (3 in-person, 12 telephone, 1 telephone/in-person). At least one person from each of the nine districts was interviewed.

District LeadersTwo rounds of interviews were conducted. The first, conducted by telephone, was with district leaders who were identified by ESE as having a primary role in the management of all, or some portion of, the redesign efforts for schools in their district. Some districts had multiple SRG schools and others had just one. In instances which permitted scheduling, separate interviews were conducted with two or three district leaders; in two cases several leaders were interviewed together. One district interview began with a telephone interview and concluded with a face-to-face interview. This strategy was taken in order to ensure that the interview would be completed.

UMDI and ESE collaborated on the development of a semi-structured interview protocol. Interviews were conducted by two UMDI evaluators and were recorded. Most interviews lasted one hour. Interviews generally followed the protocol, though not to the exclusion of emergent information and themes. The primary objective of the district leader interview was to begin collecting data in response to the two primary research questions. The second objective was to make certain the information in the grantee profile was accurate, and if not, to learn what was different. In an effort to build knowledge and triangulate data, results from the district leaders’ interviews were used to inform both the site visit interviews and the survey of SRG principals.

ESE District LiaisonsAll four ESE district liaisons were interviewed separately using an interview protocol developed in collaboration with ESE. Interviews were conducted by phone and recorded. The primary goal of the interviews was to gain the liaisons’ perspectives on school districts and the redesign schools, especially regarding the support provided by districts to the schools. Additionally, liaisons were asked about the monitoring site visits, school leadership, and any information or insights related to redesign efforts.

Principals, Teachers, and School Staff Upon completion of the district leader interviews, interviews with school leaders and staff were conducted. These interviews took place during day-long site visits to a sample of schools. School sites were selected for the sample using criteria that were developed in collaboration with ESE. Schools with Wraparound Zone funding were already being evaluated, precluding UMDI from conducting a second evaluation in those schools. This constrained the sample to the 12 Boston schools (Boston does not receive Wraparound funding) and 7 schools outside of Boston. One school was eliminated from the pool on the basis of its status; conditions at the school and district staff made it too much of an outlier to be considered. Other selection criteria included conditions such as the size of district, grade level, turnaround model, and redesign status. With the understanding that the findings from site visits could not be generalized program-wide, and with a limited pool of eligible schools, school selection proceeded on the idea that various conditions would inform the sample construction. Six schools were selected for site visits: three were in one district (which is over-represented in the SRG population with 12 schools



in all) and three were in separate districts. Two middle schools and four elementary schools were included in the sample, differing from one another in terms of their turnaround model, school size, and district size. Five schools had adopted the transformation model, and one had adopted the turnaround model.

A set of interview protocols was developed in collaboration with ESE, with questions tailored to the roles of the informants. The evaluators worked with the principals to construct a schedule, asking the principal to arrange opportunities to interview school leaders, teachers by grade level, coaches and specialists, leadership team members, and other individuals or teams that could answer questions about the redesign process. The principal was informed that interviews would be somewhat informal and open in nature, and it was emphasized that UMDI was not evaluating them, their staffs, or their schools, but the SRG program. In all sites but one, principals were able to arrange meetings as requested. Interviews proceeded from the protocols that had been developed but were flexible and responsive to emergent content. All interviews were recorded.

Principals’ Survey

A survey of all SRG principals was administered via Survey Monkey in June 2012. The survey instrument was developed in collaboration with ESE through an iterative process of editing. Questions drew from interview findings and document reviews, as well as discussion with ESE, so that results could be triangulated with other study findings. The survey was comprised of 100 closed- and open-ended questions aim at gathering principals’ perceptions of the utility and effectiveness of redesign strategies, of district support, and of expectations of their role as an SRG principal.

Analysis

Interviews were transcribed and summarized; evaluators analyzed results to find common themes and meanings as well as those that were anomalous. These results were analyzed and re-sorted into categories that were related to the primary and secondary research questions. They were also compared to results from the Principals’ Survey and to the profiles of schools that resulted from the document review. The effects of these iterative processes of analysis were syntheses of results into meaningful “SRG themes” that provide answers to the research questions.

The response rate for the Principals’ Survey was 80%, with 24 of 30 principals completing the survey. Results from the survey were analyzed for frequencies of response and to identify patterns appearing in categories such as “district support.” These results were triangulated with those from interviews to determine where they might support or contradict one another. Results from the survey are displayed in tables in this report.

Limitations

The primary limitation of the study is the small number of cases. The small “n” prohibits generalizing from the data; instead the study relies on examples to make comparisons, identify patterns in the data, and draw conclusions. Additionally, although the schools are similar in their Level 4 status and are all using redesign strategies, there is a high degree of variability in their contexts, conditions, and capacities. This makes comparison between the schools challenging. The conclusions offered in this evaluation should be considered with these limitations in mind.


School Redesign Grant Results

III. Results

In this section, results of triangulated data collection methods are presented and discussed, organized by Research Question. That is, one part of the section explores the ways in which study participants have found that SRG has been associated with the following dimensions: the district’s role in redesign, leadership in redesign, school redesign and instruction, approaches to supporting social-emotional health, and sustainability of redesign efforts (Research Question 2). The final portion of the section presents feedback on ESE’s implementation of the SRG program (Research Question 1).

Please see the Methodology section for a full discussion of data collection methods and study participants. Additionally, more detailed characteristics of Principals’ Survey respondents are as follows: Principals responding to the survey (n=24), were largely veteran educators with more than 10 years experience (n=22). One respondent had 5–6 years experience as an educator, and the other had 7–8 years experience. Their experience as principals was more varied, ranging from less than 1 year (n=1) to more than 10 years (n=4). As expected, the majority of them (n=13) had been principals at the redesign school for 1–2 years, 8 of them had been at their school for 3–4 years, and two of them had less than a year’s time at their school. Also of interest was the principals’ tenure with the school district. Nearly all of them (n=20) had been in their district for more than ten years, three were new or relatively new with four years or less in their district, and one had been with their district for 7–8 years. Overall, then, the redesign principals tended to be veteran educators with extensive ties to the district in which they work, though their experience as principals varied widely and was fairly evenly distributed across the range from less than one year to more than ten.

A. Overview: Perspectives on Redesign

One of the goals of the evaluation is to capture educators’ perceptions of the effectiveness of various elements of the school redesign approach to turnaround. Of interest are the various elements of the federal turnaround models, ranging from the replacement of school leaders to efforts to reconfigure teacher collaboration, and a host of other strategies. Overall, the discussion to follow in the body of this report suggests that study participants tend not to point to one or another of the strategies as solely explanatory of their experience with redesign to date. In fact, the degree of similarity in response to questions attempting to distinguish between the federal models—“transformation” and “turnaround,” for example—is remarkable. What emerges from the data is a notion that it is the integration of the multiple turnaround strategies—the synergy of them, employed within the framework of a clear vision and focused goals—that counts most. The discussion will show that certain strategies do tend to rise to the surface — exemptions and allowances negotiated with teachers unions, for example, or the principal’s hiring and budget autonomy—but, overall, it is the sense of these tools being employed together in a multitude of ways, in the service of a broader goal, that matters.

Responses to the following questions posed in the Principals’ Survey provide particular weight to this conclusion:

1. How effective was the strategy of replacing school leaders in furthering your school’s redesign efforts (e.g., new principal, new assistant principals, deans, coordinators who were hired as part of the redesign plan)?

2. How effective was the process of fostering understanding of and commitment to your school’s redesign mission and goals?

3. How effective was the creation of a new leadership structure (e.g., teams, committees, roles and responsibilities that were defined and organized as part of the redesign plan)?



4. How effective was the use of formal structures for teacher collaboration (e.g., common planning time, grade level meetings, professional learning communities)?

5. How effective was restructuring the school day (e.g., for longer blocks, teacher collaboration, team meetings, PD)?

As shown in the table below, nearly two-thirds (63%) of survey respondents found formal structures for teacher collaboration to be very effective, and nearly half (47%) of respondents found tiered instruction to be very effective. Just under one-third (30% each) found fostering understanding of and commitment to redesign mission and goals and creation of a new leadership structure to be very effective. Without reading too much into these results, it is interesting to note that the range of strategies identified as “very effective” by at least a handful of respondents is broad. This, in a nutshell, is the story of school redesign told in the following pages: the power of school redesign lies in the integration, coordination, and alignment of various turnaround strategies.

Table 1. Effectiveness of SRG/Turnaround Strategies

Very effective

EffectiveSomewhat effective

Not at all effective

Too soon to tell

Not occurring

at my school

Formal structures for teacher collaboration (PLCs, common planning time, grade level meetings) (n=19)

12 (63.2%) 2 (10.5%) 2 (10.5%) 1 (5.3%) 2 (10.5%) –

Tiered Instruction: use of benchmark, formative and summative assessments to place students and continually inform instruction (n=19)

9 (47.4%) 6 (31.6%) 3 (15.8%) – – 1 (5.3%)

Fostering understanding of and commitment to your school’s redesign mission and goals (n=20)

6 (30.0%) 8 (33.3%) 4 (20.0%) – 2 (10.0%) –

Creation of a new leadership structure (e.g., teams, committees, roles and responsibilities) (n=21)

6 (30.0%) 8 (33.3%) 4 (20.0%) 2 (9.5%) 1 (5.0%) –

Restructuring the school day (n=19)

5 (26.3%) 5 (26.3%) 2 (10.5%) 4 (21.1%) – 3 (15.8%)

Replacing school leaders (n=20) 4 (20.0%) 7 (35.0%) 5 (25.0%) – 3 (15.0%) 1 (5.0%)

Survey results on staff turnover reveal similar findings; the overall assessment of impact is largely positive, but responses reflect a somewhat complex range of experiences. To help better understand the context, the survey



asked principals about the percentage of staff turnover in their first year of redesign. As shown in the table, most respondents experienced staff turnover of 50% or less, with 42% experiencing 25% or less.

Table 2. Staff Turnover in the First Year of Redesign

Frequency Percentage

0 – 25% 8 42.1

26 – 50% 6 31.6

51 – 80% 3 15.8

More than 80% 2 10.5

Total 19 100

Interestingly, even for those who had relatively low turnover rates, the impact of the transition appeared to be fairly significant. When asked “To what extent did staff turnover during the first year of the grant positively impact the effectiveness of your school’s redesign work?” more than 40% of respondents reported that it positively affected their work” to a great extent,” and nearly one-third reported “to some extent.”

Table 3. Extent of Positive Impact of Staff Turnover


Great extent 8 42.1

Some extent 6 31.6

Not at all 4 21.1

Too soon to tell 1 5.3

Total 19 100

One likely explanation of these results—and one supported by interviews and document review—is that the opportunity to bring in new staff during the first year mattered because those new staff members typically chose to join a redesign school staff. Largely, they entered into the school redesign enterprise willingly and with an awareness of the significant commitment that they would need to bring to their work. They were aware that the redesign plan introduced a number of strategies into the school, and they “signed on” ready to embrace the hard work that would be needed to carry them out.

School principals were asked to assess the appropriateness of funding levels and human resource allocations with respect to their redesign goals. As shown below, most principals (52%) strongly agreed or agreed that the school has sufficient funding, with about one-quarter (26%) who neither agreed nor disagreed. Given that SRG is intended to complement other turnaround efforts in place in the district, rather than being a sole source of funding for a particular initiative, these results are not surprising. But, some complexity still does arise; what is perhaps most interesting is that about one-third of respondents disagree that they have sufficient human resources to carry out the redesign plan and achieve its goals.



Table 4. Financial and Human Resources are Sufficient for Turnaround Goals

Strongly agree

Agree Neither

agree nor disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

Don’t know

The school has sufficient funding to carry out the redesign plan and achieve its goals.

4 (21.1%) 6 (31.6%) 5 (26.3%) 1 (5.3%) 1 (5.3%) 2 (10.5%)

The school has sufficient human resources to carry out the redesign plan and achieve its goals.

2 (10.5%) 6 (31.6%) 2 (10.5%) 6 (31.6%) 1 (5.3%) 2 (10.5%)

n=19

Correspondingly, when principals were asked what needs could be alleviated with additional funding or human resources, 11 of the 12 open-ended responses cited additional staff members (the one other cited general anxiety about the loss of Level 4 status). The staff members identified ranged from teachers to coaches to interventionists to leaders, as shown below:

1. Modernize shops (most shops have not been updated since this building was opened in 1989). 2. Hire more adjustment counselors. 3. Hire and develop more leadership capacity, both for academic and CTE sides of the building.

Additional resource staff, special education and ESL certified teachers, would help provide more students with services.

We need more interventionists for ELA and Math.

Due to budget issues for FY13, my instructional coaches have been reduced drastically. It would be helpful if SRG money could pay for instructional coaches.

Tutoring

I am afraid of what is going to happen when we get released from Level 4 status.

Staffing cuts have been consistent throughout the redesign period. Enrollment patterns have not been steady or consistent throughout redesign period.

Recruitment was inadequate. We ended up with many motivated but unskilled teachers who were not up to the task. We spent so much time hiring in the first summer that there was not enough time to plan.

Reading specialists

Having a reading interventionist at every grade level; currently we have two, increasing to three, but we really need six!!!



Human Resources. We have many students that manifest social, emotional, and behavioral issues. More staff highly trained in handling SEBS students and issues would reduce fallout from academics.

I would like the ability to hire as many SPED or ELL teachers as I deem needed without being confined to the allocation formula used by the district.

Again, the message that comes through is that staff people are key elements in the redesign equation, particularly those staff who are employed strategically to further the school’s overall efforts to improve.

Perceptions of the three-year grant time limit were also mixed, reflecting both positive and constructive feedback. When asked to comment on SRG’s three-year timeframe, principals largely agreed that the time limit helps to focus the school on positive change, but about one-third disagreed that three years is a reasonable amount of time to achieve the goals.

Table 5. Perceptions of Three-year Time Limit in Relation to Change and Goals

Strongly agree

Agree Neither

agree nor disagree


Don’t know

The three-year time limit helps the school to focus on positive change.

5 (26.3%)) 8 (42.1%) 3 (15.8%) 3 (15.8%) – –

Three years is a reasonable amount of time to achieve the redesign goals.

2 (10.5%) 5 (26.3%) 2 (10.5%) 6 (31.6%) 4 (21.1%) –

n=19

In the survey, one principal added “[I]f I think of each indicator separately, it is realistic. However, it's the combination of all of them in THREE YEARS…that makes it challenging.”

Feedback on the timeframe, as well as on staffing, again point back to the larger message: while new resources and strategies offer opportunities for remarkable transformation, they also present clear challenges. In particular, the nature of the work – lots of overlapping, interdependent initiatives – suggests that it is critical to look at the ways in which turnaround strategies are juxtaposed. As demonstrated in the pages that follow, principals and other leaders tend to find that in managing reform, the importance of keeping focused – while executing multiple, interdependent efforts – cannot be underestimated, and the time needed to implement and plan for the sustainability of change is significant. These and other findings are explored in more detail in the sections that follow.

B. Perceptions of SRG Associated with Improvements

This section explores the ways in which SRG is perceived to have been effective, taking into account the perspectives of a range of stakeholders. While themes are overlapping, the discussion is organized into discrete sub-sections, beginning with a look at the district’s role in redesign.



B.1. The District’s Role in Redesign

This section explores study participants’ perspectives on the district’s role in school redesign. It looks at the relationship between districts and schools from a few perspectives, highlights certain areas in which aspects of the grant program are perceived to be working well—especially with respect to principals’ autonomy and district-provided supports—and identifies a few key suggestions for enhancing the effectiveness of district-school structures and processes.

District support tends to take the form of passionate and engaged – yet isolated – individuals While there was some variation in response to questions about the levels and types of involvement that districts demonstrate with respect to their redesign schools, one finding cuts across all data collection methods and responses: typically, district support to redesign hinges on relationships with a few key isolated individuals. That is, results thus far suggest that there tend to be a few leaders at the district level who have assumed responsibility for – and who demonstrate commitment to and understanding of– the redesign efforts at their schools. These individuals appear to be working very hard to maintain relationships with their principals, and they reported that their awareness of the redesign efforts in their schools has largely increased since the grant’s inception. In many cases, they reported that they spend more time in schools than they ever have, and they cited examples of their participation in school-level activities (e.g., redesign teams, learning walkthroughs). Accordingly, principals, when asked about supports from the district, tended to cite these individual leaders in the central office: survey respondents and interviewees spoke of the value of relationships with specific district turnaround leaders and staff (redesign officers, liaisons, superintendents) but emphasized the overall lack of district involvement in or responsiveness to school-level efforts. They noted that, in some cases, efforts are not coordinated within the district and between the district and the school, or in other cases, that efforts may even contradict one another. They described, as well, a notion of missing links in the system, to the extent that information conveyed to one individual at the district office is frequently not disseminated as it should be, or is not acted upon. One principal explained, for example, frustration at having to describe the school anew each time a meeting was held at the district office. Similarly, interviews suggested that the presence of a district leader at a school redesign meeting did not guarantee that needed follow-up actions would be taken when that leader returned to the office. These observations suggest that despite the development and growth of turnaround offices and other efforts to systematize support, system-wide district capacity still appears to be underdeveloped. The individuals associated with redesign appear to be isolated from—rather than associated with—relevant components of the system.

It should also be noted that this limited study did not explore whether instances of district-level efforts to improve coordination have been undertaken across the state. There was one district leader who described efforts to increase integration across various departments at the district level by transforming the role of grants managers in the system. This leader’s notion is to bring grants managers out of isolation—historically, their working condition—and instead, into contact with one another. The idea is that if they understand one another’s programs —the purposes and associated resources of each other’s programs—they will be better equipped, for example, to think strategically, manage resources, budget with an eye toward pursuit of common goals.

As shown in the table below, the responses to one of the questions on the principals’ survey illustrated this point and reinforced similar comments heard on the site visits. When principals were asked how the district supports them in their role as redesign principal, about 63% selected “district staff or leaders from whom I can solicit support or feedback.” Additionally, about 42% of respondents cited “open-door policies ….with district staff….” as well as “informal assessment and/or mentoring…” This contrasts with rates between 29% and 46% for more systemic supports such as facilitation of networks and partnerships, and various forms of assessment and mentoring.



Table 6. Supports Provided to the Principal by the District


District staff or leaders from whom I can solicit support or feedback 15 62.5

Facilitation and coordination of external partnerships in the redesign efforts 11 45.8

Informal assessment and/or mentoring provided by a district leader 10 41.7

Open-door policies at the district that allow me to share both challenges and successes with district staff or leaders 10 41.7

Formal coaching and/or mentoring to support my leadership of the school (e.g., from an individual, advisory team, or outside consultant)

10 41.7

Facilitation of professional networks (principal network, urban district network, turnaround network) 8 33.3

Formal assessment of my job performance (involving use of a rubric or protocol, scheduled assessments/observations, formalized feedback)

8 33.3

Monitoring external partnerships 7 29.2

n=24

Call for coordinated, system-wide efforts

In interviews and through open-ended responses on the survey, principals called for a more coordinated system to support turnaround efforts. Comments suggested the need for a more coherent and integrated planning effort, as well as improved coordination of specific implementation and evaluation efforts. On the survey, one principal connected the incoherence of planning efforts to a lack of systemic (versus more individualized) district support, as follows:

The district must become more supportive of turnaround leaders. Currently, there is a level of incoherence, where the team in place to support turnaround work is planning their support in isolation of the turnaround school teams. This must be aligned. Separate from the turnaround leadership team, there are many, many folks supportive of the work. This must, however, become a district-wide focus and not the priority of individuals [emphasis added].

Another principal cited a lack of coherence between the district’s turnaround plan and the school’s redesign plan, commenting, “It appears that our three-year time limit is impacted by the district turnaround plan….After a difficult transition last year… I felt like our school was making progress, although support was inconsistent from district and state level. Now that the district has written a new turnaround plan, our efforts will be cut short as a new direction has been set.” Similarly, one principal looked back over experience to date and reflected that greater coherence between the district and school plan would have been advisable:



What would have made this a much more successful venture is if we had slowed down and had a cohesive thought-out plan before beginning –with the district offering a cohesive plan that was integrated into the individual school plans.

In interviews and in the survey, principals highlighted their need for districts–first– to manage effectively the new and additional demands that accompany the SRG. For example, one survey respondent wrote, “Turnaround has created complicated budget and staffing situations (such as partner contracts, expanded hiring, stipends) that have not had enough central support.” Other respondents attributed difficulties in using SRG funds to their district’s budgeting, spending and contracting procedures. They wrote:

Funds were taken by the district from all level 4 schools for salaries of the Redesign office personnel, training for ELL categories, ANET testing. The budget we are awarded is not the budget we ultimately get.

The district’s process for spending the funds had challenges. They did not pay consultants on time at times.

Contracts with people was a challenge and paying stipends to employees for summer work is still a challenge.

Timely pay out to partners from central office [was a barrier to using SRG funds].

Additionally, principals noted the importance of the district’s role in carrying out routine administrative and procedural tasks, especially in the context of the rapid and dramatic improvement efforts that they are leading. One principal wrote, for example:

I need the district to move quickly to find solutions on things that prevent our school from succeeding. For example, I want all bus students to get to school on time, so they are not consistently missing crucial instructional time.

Additional requests for coordination of efforts included calls for more consistency in learning walk protocols and measures (i.e., having the same evaluator teams across schools, consensus on the meaning of indicators, and consistency between “formal observation assessments” and “learning walk analyses”), as follows:

[Re: learning walks] the teams were different each time. The teams had people who don’t know how to teach. The teams differed from school to school but we were compared to one other. There wasn’t consensus on what all the indicators meant.

Learning walk analyses [do] not match formal observation assessments. During learning walks, district administrators were very critical of the teaching and learning practices in my school.



Yet when it comes to formal observations that I will use in my summary evaluations, out of 61 teachers observed by central office staff, only 2 received an ‘Unsatisfactory’ mark.

Additionally, there is a need for districts to carry out their routine operational tasks. In a context of rapid and dramatic change, the consequences of missteps – such as uneven delivery of PD or buses that run late, resulting in students’ missed instructional time – are exacerbated.

Perceptions of the extent and nature of district involvement in redesign, and implicationsOverall, principals’ and school staff’s views of their district’s involvement in redesign are mixed. SRG principals—whose work life is characterized by competing demands and mounting time pressures—voice appreciation for targeted, customized support from the district that reflects knowledge of their schools’ needs and addresses those needs, without adding additional burden. District involvement that is perceived to increase principals’ workload without clearly contributing to the redesign efforts is, not surprisingly, viewed as yet another distraction. In that light, results below suggest not that districts should either increase or decrease their efforts in particular areas (with a few exceptions) but rather that they should continue to assess and adjust all aspects of their involvement, so as to enhance effectiveness. Given that there is no clear consensus with respect to principals’ assessment of the most valuable aspects of districts’ involvement in their redesign efforts, the following district supports received repeat praise from school staff throughout the survey and site visits:

Assistance with the application and renewal processes (e.g., writing, review/feedback, arranging support from outside consultants)

Coaching (instructional and for principals)

Data support (e.g., provision of reports, analysis)

Professional development and networking (NISL, District Management Council training, leadership and Level 4 turnaround networks)

Expertise in specific areas, either from district staff or partners (e.g., assistance with teacher evaluations, special education, administration, scheduling, inclusion, accountability, transportation)

Monitoring (formal and informal review meetings with district staff, participation in the MSV process)

Union negotiations

Partnership facilitation and coordination

Sustainability planning

With respect to district support for SRG applications and renewals, survey respondents wrote, for example:

Getting consultants to work with the team and do the actual typing into the template was a fine way to allow us to do the work but not be concerned with fitting things into a template.

My district leadership reviewed our application all through its development.



District support for the SRG renewal was fine and appropriate. It balanced district priorities and school needs.

For my case the district did a great job with helping us on year three application.

Please note that there is further discussion of the specific value of these and other supports throughout this section and the remainder of the report.

Autonomy: Principals’ staffing autonomy is seen as critical to redesign success (sustained momentum and stable workforce)Overall, the majority of survey respondents tended to feel that they have some autonomy from the district. In the survey, principals were asked, “How much autonomy do you have from the district?” One-quarter of respondents reported, “Nearly complete autonomy: I can make most decisions independently of the district” (25%). Slightly more than one-half (54%) reported “Some autonomy: I can make some decisions without them, but not others.” One-fifth reported “Little autonomy: I make very few decisions without the district.”

Asked in the survey to identify any changes in the level of involvement they would need from the district, principals offered a range of responses. As shown in the table below, three-quarters of respondents would appreciate increased involvement in the area of sustainability planning (75%), followed by family outreach and relations (63%), tiered instruction practices (50%), and community partnerships (45%). Nearly half (45%) of respondents would look for decreased involvement in curriculum.

Table 7. Autonomy: Need for District Involvement

Increasedinvolvement

Decreasedinvolvement

No change needed

Too soon to tell

Sustainability planning 18 (75.0%) 1 (4.2%) 4 (16.7%) 1 (4.2%)

Family outreach and relations 15 (62.5%) 1 (4.2%) 8 (33.3%) –

Tiered instruction practices 12 (50.0%) 2 (8.3%) 8 (33.3%) 2 (8.3%)

Community partnerships 11 (45.0%) 2 (8.3%) 10 (41.7%) 1 (4.2%)

Student behavior management 10 (41.7%) 2 (8.3%) 11 (45.0%) 1 (4.2%)

The principal’s (your) professional development 9 (37.5%) 6 (25.0%) 9 (37.5%) –

Staff professional development 9 (37.5%) 7 (29.2%) 8 (33.3%) –

Student data management and analysis 8 (33.3%) 6 (25.0%) 9 (37.5%) –

Staffing – personnel and schedules 7 (29.2%) 5 (20.8%) 12 (50.0%) –

Curriculum 5 (20.8%) 11 (45.0%) 7 (29.2%) 1 (4.2%)

Development of team leadership 5 (20.8%) 4 (16.7%) 15 (62.5%) –

Budgets and expenditures 5 (20.8%) 6 (25.0%) 11 (45.0%) 2 (8.3%)

n=24 Largely, findings from interviews, site visits and the survey suggest that principals view autonomy—in particular, autonomy related to staffing, budget, and curriculum—as critical to their redesign success.



Perceptions of the degree to which principals enjoy autonomy and identify a need for change in the district’s role vary from case to case and from speaker to speaker. In interviews with district staff, the principal’s autonomy with regard to staffing was frequently mentioned as a positive aspect of the turnaround plan, and district leaders tended to emphasize the district’s role in negotiating with teachers’ unions. Some principals, conversely, tended to describe a more conservative appraisal of the amount of autonomy that they actually enjoy, while some others spoke more generally about discrepancies between the staffing autonomies outlined in the redesign plan and the realities of district policies limiting those autonomies. One principal wrote, for example, “There have been no actual flexibilities regarding management of budget and we must still conform to the district formula for staffing allocation. We cannot make true staffing decisions unless we are released from this formula. It adds a great deal to the stress.” Another principal wrote:

While I can control some of the Redesign funds, I have no control over the district staffing budget allocated to my school. The one-size-fits-all formula is inadequate for level 4 schools. This is another example of how Central Office is out of touch. We have the same rules as level 1,2 and 3 schools. What is wrong with this picture?

Site visit interviewees also described the ways in which union and district policies (e.g., transfer, lay-offs) limit autonomy and result in unstable work forces. Overall, principals noted two implications associated with limits in staffing autonomy:

challenges to introducing and sustaining all of the new SRG initiatives (e.g., they continually have to explain and re-explain the goals and mission to new and old teachers)

uneven quality of the workforce. Specifically, they suggested that teachers have to have a certain level of baseline commitment, passion, and skill to work at schools like theirs and felt that the limits on staffing autonomy sometimes inhibited their ability to keep “the right people” and let go of others.

On the contrary, when they did report more staffing autonomy, school leaders described the value of having a staff that knew the challenges of redesign and wanted to work at the school. For example, leaders and teachers at one school explained that the district’s negotiation of exemptions from the “bid and bump” system has allowed the school to build a stable, committed teaching staff that has persisted for two years. At this school, the principal reported that the staff is protected from the system and that the principal now has the authority to directly hire teachers and specialists as needed. Some veterans claimed that it is the first time in their career with the district that they have had this stability. Teachers noted that this stability has fostered a strong collaborative culture within and across grade levels. Several said that it has made them better teachers because they have participated in professional development that they have then been able to implement with their grade-level team. This process has allowed teachers to learn from one another and quickly gain confidence with new teaching strategies or materials. The impact on students was also noted: students have noticed that the teachers are “staying put” and they have begun to plan accordingly (“I want Miss Smith for third grade”). Staff reported that these conditions did not exist prior to SRG, and they describe the change as, among other things, a crucial developmental piece for many students who have little stability in their home lives.

Budget, curriculum and scheduling autonomy valued by principals

As suggested above, principals highlighted as well the value of budgeting and curricular autonomy. While survey comments were more general and did not elaborate on the specific value of budgeting autonomy, interview and site visit comments connected the value of budgeting autonomy to decision-making powers around staffing (e.g., the ability to plan a budget for new staff) and overall allocation of resources. When mentioned, the necessity of



budget autonomy was framed in terms of the school’s unique needs as against the district’s one-size-fits-all budgeting approach With regard to curriculum autonomy, site visit interviewees spoke of the value of being able to select specific texts and make decisions about the timing of certain instructional initiatives. One principal also remarked on a lack of curricular autonomy and suggested that the district’s decisions around curriculum reflect a lack of understanding of the specific needs of the students at the school. Finally, in discussions of autonomy, several people spoke of the value of flexibility in scheduling in order to provide differentiated instruction and to increase time for staff collaboration.

Other valuable aspects of district involvement: Networking opportunities, partnerships and coaching

In terms of district support for principals, many survey respondents and interviewees highlighted the value or potential value of networking opportunities (both within and across districts). Survey respondents who are participating in turnaround networks gave examples of their value. In response to the question, “Which one of the district-provided supports do you believe has contributed most to your success as a redesign principal,” one principal wrote: “The turnaround network has contributed the most for the following reasons: It is where we discuss some of our redesign goals, have quarterly meetings to discuss successes and challenges, and also have professional development on new initiatives.” Another wrote, “Of the most value are the network meetings with Level 4 principals, only as they enable us to share, discuss, and problem solve around the realities of our schools.” On the site visits as well, several principals expressed a desire for more networking opportunities with other Level 4 principals and SRG leaders. A few people also suggested expanding current networking opportunities to include other populations besides principals (e.g., teachers, district leaders from different districts, and school social workers).

Conversely, survey respondents and site visit principals who are not currently participating in turnaround networks noted their desire for such networks and imagined the benefits of participation (e.g., less isolation, sharing strategies, not “reinventing the wheel,” shared understanding of the challenges of turnaround, professional and emotional support). One principal commented, “It would have been nice to feel part of a healthy network of schools taking on a challenge together. It has felt isolated and competitive rather than as a shared mission. I think that was a lost opportunity.”

Note: Please see the Feedback to ESE section (“Further Support”) for a brief discussion of cautions to guide the development of effective networks.

Partnerships: valued district component and need for increased district involvementAs noted above, community partnerships was one of the areas in which nearly half of survey respondents requested more district involvement. These data are supported by comments in the survey and during the site visits. As an indication of the overall value of partnerships, two respondents to the principals’ survey cited partnerships as the best investment of grant funds, and one cited it as one of the two best investments (along with other additional staff). Other informants spoke of the value of specific partnerships in providing both instructional and social emotional support (see these sections—Instruction and Social-Emotional— for more elaboration). One principal indicated that, had she been more aware of the potential value of partnerships from the beginning, she would have given more attention to partners in the planning phase (e.g., during the stakeholder meetings).

The principals’ survey indicated (Table 6, above) that partnership facilitation and coordination was more prevalent than many other forms of district support to principals (with nearly half selecting it). The district interviews and site visits also demonstrated variation in both the prevalence of partnerships and the district role in facilitating and coordinating partnerships. One district in particular appeared to have the most partners and the



most involvement, although, even in this district, leaders expressed a need for more of a shift in management from the school level to the district level. In this district and in others, leaders cited specific challenges that suggested the potential for enhanced district support. These included: identification of partners with specific expertise, ensuring that partners are fully aware of and “on board” with the SRG mission, ensuring that all members of the school community (staff, students, and families) benefit from the partnerships, clarifying the role (e.g., decision-making power) of partners, developing sustainable partnerships, monitoring and evaluating partnerships, and coordinating partners as part of the larger system of school support and initiatives.

Coaching: a multi-purpose solution to challenges inherent in redesign (staff turnover, principal mentorship, teacher growth, student growth)

As shown below, principals cited coaches, overall, as effective components of their redesign work. This sentiment was expressed in interviews and during site visits as well. Typically, school-based coaches are believed to be more effective than district-based coaches (in the survey and in interviews), although more than half of the respondents find district-based instructional coaches to be very effective or effective (26% and 26%, respectively).

Table 8. Effectiveness of School- and District-based Coaches and Specialists

Very effective

Effective Somewhat effective


Too soon to tell

Not occurring

at my school

School-based instructional coaches 12 (63.2%) 2 (10.5%) 2 (10.5%) 1 (5.3%) 2 (10.5%) –

School-based instructional and/or curriculum specialists 9 (47.4%) 6 (31.6%) 3 (15.8%) – – 1 (5.3%)

District-based instructional coaches

5 (26.3%) 5 (26.3%) 2 (10.5%) 4 (21.1%) – 3 (15.8%)

District-based instructional and/or curriculum specialists 1 (5.3%) 6 (31.6%) 1 (5.3%) 2 (10.5%) – 8 (42.1%)

n=19

Coaches are used to address a number of challenges prominent in redesign. Please see the Instruction section for a discussion of the role of instructional coaches with regard to teacher and student growth. Here, we note briefly that principals tend to view instructional coaches as key elements of the redesign plan, specifically with respect to staff turnover and principal mentoring.

In redesign, principals and others report that the influx of new staff poses tremendous opportunities to launch a new vision and develop buy-in, but they note that challenges are associated with such a significant staffing transition, including the need to convey a common mission, and the need to build and reinforce the skills of those staff members who come with relatively little teaching or leadership experience. Survey respondents described the challenges of introducing new staff to the mission and, more generally, building a culture and community of staff committed to and focused on redesign efforts. Four survey respondents also commented on the challenges of having relatively inexperienced educators, and gave some suggestions for further support, including more assistance with recruitment and coaching for new teachers.



On a related note, district-provided coaching for principals was also cited by some study participants as an effective district-provided support. Asked, “How does the district support you in your role as a redesign principal?” formal coaching and/or mentoring was selected by 10 of the principals, and 3 emphasized the value of this support with comments. One principal stated, “It keeps me sane… and affirms my decision making.” During one interview, a principal spoke of the particular challenge of being a new principal and seemed to attribute some of the district-wide differences in first-year outcomes, at least in part, to differences in levels of principal experience. When asked if he received support from the district through its principal mentoring program, his face immediately lit up. He said that his coach (a retired principal) was a key support to him and had been critical in providing emotional support (e.g., reminding him that no one has the “right answer” all the time and that he is not alone) as well as concrete ideas and feedback. In an open-ended response in the survey, one principal also suggested that district support could be improved by developing a principal mentoring system, and one district leader expressed her desire to develop such a system in her own district.

Additional views on effectiveness—and needed changes—in district-level supportThe survey solicited principals’ thoughts about the frequency and effectiveness of various district-provided supports. As shown in the table below, most principals felt that learning walks, district monitoring of their school’s progress through collection and analyses of data, meetings with district staff to review their school’s performance, and meetings with district staff to review their school’s needs are all occurring frequently enough.

Table 9. Frequency of Activities Needed to Further Progress Toward Goals

More than enough

Enough Not enough Not at all Too soon to tell

Learning walks 6 (28.6%) 13 (61.9%) 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%) –

District monitoring of your school’s progress and results through collection and analyses of data (such as student assessments, teacher attendance rates, and standardized test scores)

5 (23.8%) 11 (52.4%) 3 (14.3%) 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%)

Meetings with district staff to review school’s performance 3 (14.3%) 14 (66.7%) 2 (8.3%) 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%)

Meetings with district staff to review school’s needs 1 (4.8%) 13 (61.9%) 5 (23.8%) 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%)

n=21; modal categories are shown in boldface type

Turning to the effectiveness of district-provided services, the Table 10 shows that no one service emerges as particularly effective, almost two-thirds of respondents find district-provided data management services to be “very useful” or “useful,” and slightly more than half of respondents find monitoring of their school’s progress and evidence from learning walks to be “very useful” or “useful.” As many respondents (n=9) find meetings with district staff to review their school’s performance to be very useful or useful, as find it to be somewhat useful. In regard to sustainability planning, 38% report that it is “too soon to tell” how useful the district’s assistance will be.



Table 10. Usefulness of District Supports

Very useful

Useful Somewhat useful

Not useful

Too soon to tell

Not occurring

at my school

District-provided data management services

6 (28.6%) 7 (33.3%) 4 (19.0%) 2 (9.5%) 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%)

Monitoring of school’s progress and results 5 (23.8%) 6 (28.6%) 8 (38.1%) – 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%)

Evidence from learning walks 5 (23.8%) 6 (28.6%) 6 (28.6%) 2 (9.5%) – 2 (9.5%)

Meetings with district staff 2 (9.5%) 7 (33.3%) 9 (42.9%) 2 (9.5%) 1 (4.8%) –

Assistance with sustainability planning – 4 (19.0%) 3 (14.3%) 1 (4.8%) 8 (38.1%) 5 (23.8%)

n=21; modal categories are shown in boldface type

Those survey respondents who selected “very useful” or “useful” were asked to identify the most useful aspects of the supports. The table below displays the district supports that were identified as useful and the elements of the supports that made them so. Of those indicating that evidence from learning walks was useful (n=11), the majority (82%) indicated that it is the district’s focus on redesign goals that made it useful. Of the nine principals indicating meetings with district staff were useful, two-thirds indicated that it was district expertise in specific areas that made the meetings useful. These and additional results are displayed below.

Table 11. Elements of District Support Found Useful

District understands and

articulates school’s needs

District contributes expertise in

specific areas

District keeps focus on school’s

redesign goals

District shares responsibility for

the work that needs to get

done

Meetings with district staff (n=9) 3 (33.3%) 6 (66.6%) 4 (44.4%) 1 (11.1%)

Monitoring of school’s progress and results (n=11) 3 (27.3%) 4 (36.4%) 6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%)

District-provided data management services (n=13)

4 (30.8%) 8 (61.5%) 8 (61.5%) 5 (38.5%)

Evidence from learning walks (n=11) 3 (27.3%) 6 (54.5%) 9 (81.8%) 4 (36.4%)

Assistance with sustainability planning (n=4) 1 (25.0%) 2 (50.0%) 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.0%)

n= only those principals indicating district support is useful or very useful (see Table 7 above); modal categories are shown in boldface typeConversely, those respondents who reported that services are somewhat useful or not useful were asked to identify the district’s limitations that inhibit effectiveness. In relation to four district supports that were identified as not useful—meetings, monitoring, data management services, and sustainability planning— “low district



capacity (lack of staff, limited time)” was cited most frequently, as a limitation making district support less than effective. These and additional results are displayed below.

Table 12. Limitations of District that Make Support Less than Effective

District has incomplete

understanding of school’s needs

District lacks expertise in some areas

Low district capacity (lack of

staff, limited time)

Ineffective communication

Meetings with district staff (n=11) 6 (54.5%) 4 (36.4%) 6 (54.5%) 3 (27.3%)

Monitoring of school’s progress and results (n=8) 3 (27.3%) 1 (9.1%) 5 (45.5%) 3 (27.3%)

District-provided data management services (n=6)

1 (16.7%) – 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3%)

Evidence from learning walks (n=8) 4 (36.4%) 5 (45.5%) 4 (36.4%) 4 (36.4%)

Assistance with sustainability planning (n=4) – 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) 2 (50.0%)

n= only those principals indicating district support is somewhat useful or not useful (see Table 7 above); modal categories are shown in boldface type

With regard to principals’ views that the district lacks expertise, one principal wrote, “The leaders that are supposed to be my support have never turned around a school themselves so I question their selection for the position.” Others expressed concerns with the inexperience of specific district staff members, such as those participating in learning walks, running district meetings, and heading the Human Resources department. One respondent stated that district leaders were not even part of the learning walks: “The learning walks do not occur with District Office and never with the superintendent or assistant superintendent. [Others] are doing the learning walks, most who do not work in level 4 schools. This needs a major overhaul in thinking.”

While the sample sizes are small for these items, the results are consistent with findings discussed elsewhere—that principals are challenged by the many competing demands on their time and attention, and so they appreciate the district’s role in keeping their focus on redesign goals. Among principals who found some district supports were not useful, their perceptions of low district capacity may in part be a function of a principals’ reliance on single (or a few) busy individuals in the district system.

“The district is like a ghost”: Call for improved understanding of schools (increased time and more direct interaction between districts and schools)One of the most common observations made by principals addressing the deficiency in district support was that district leaders do not spend enough time in schools. Some school leaders and staff spoke of the infrequency of visits as well as the insufficient time spent on individual school visits. As a result, they claimed that district leaders do not “see the entire picture” and therefore do not have the understanding necessary to deliver appropriate feedback and support, and cannot identify the areas in which there has been progress. During a site visit, one teacher said, “The district is like a ghost. We don’t see them, and they’re not supportive.” Principals described the district’s lack of familiarity with the school as a limitation to the district’s ability to provide



adequate support and resources. Specifically, school leaders cited the lack of district-level understanding of individual school needs as a limitation in the following: district meetings, curricular decisions by district-based instructional specialists, efforts to support middle school populations, and district walkthroughs and other evaluative methods, sustainability planning and data support services. Illustrative comments from the survey include:

No one from central office has visited my school for more than 10 minutes other than [one individual].

Downtown needs to get out of the office and be in the schools just as we must get out of the office and be in classrooms. I'm not trying to place blame but they can't continue to evaluate us by scores. They need to see the entire picture.

Time spent in each class is too short to get a true picture of the work that must happen.

In the requests for more frequent and/or longer visits, most people specifically requested that district leaders spend more time in classrooms and talking to teachers. One principal suggested that a district person such as the Redesign Officer have a permanent office in the school, and did not seem to be aware that this was in fact the case at one redesign school. Additionally, two people spoke of their disappointment at the loss of district leaders who had had more regular positions at their schools. One of these schools had a district leader as its interim principal for a time, and the other had had a liaison that navigated between the district and the school during the first year of the grant.

Additional suggestions for effective district support: targeted feedback and differentiated PD

Survey respondents and interviewees also felt that the quality of district support could be enhanced through provision of more direct communication between districts and schools, and feedback from the district to the school. In addition to more general comments, survey respondents requested more ongoing/frequent reviews of performance, more meetings with district leaders (including teachers), and more differentiated professional development (preferably onsite). Site visit interviews also supported these requests; teachers expressed a desire for more targeted, individualized feedback from state and district evaluators, and school leaders complained of the lack of direct and ongoing district communication and feedback on redesign plans and implementation challenges. Principals requesting more targeted feedback and review wrote:

Continue to support with open communication and instructional feedback.

Give me direct feedback

Ongoing communication and review of goals and redesign efforts [are needed]. Providing necessary personnel to support efforts in new initiatives and monitoring progress on MAGS.

More frequent reviews of my school’s performance as well as meetings to discuss my school’s needs would be beneficial to our turnaround efforts. The district monitors progress and results system wide, but more frequently for [my] school would be beneficial.

More meetings with district staff to review plan, direction, needs would be beneficial to make mid-course corrections and directly tie data to components to evaluate effectiveness

We need direction, targeted feedback and "on call" support from the central office.



Principals requesting differentiated PD wrote:

Stay focused on instruction Provide differentiated support and PD according to individual school needs

Principals should not be out of their buildings as frequently as last year, and professional development for principals should be differentiated according to principals’ skill set. This is huge for me…

Finally, some principals indentified a need for districts to differentiate the supports and demands they carry out with respect to Level 4 schools. In particular, some principals call for a concerted effort to minimize administrative and managerial responsibilities so that principals are free to focus on instructional work (“Filter the managerial items out for schools….Minimize paperwork and reports”). Similarly, some principals request that districts adopt an overall approach to Level 4 schools that intensifies support while minimizing distractions (“Level 4 schools are treated the same with regards to monitoring and coaching.; [we need] more help, less paper work”).

Sensitivity to political issues Among the challenges facing SRG principals is the need to manage public perceptions, including, in some cases, assertions that their schools are disproportionately resourced. In this light, some principals find that they are negatively impacted by publicity generated either by the district or ESE. While they understand that the district may wish to showcase or celebrate an SRG school’s accomplishments, they worry, in some cases, that public acknowledgment of their accomplishments and/or discussions that highlight “extra” support given to their schools may be misinterpreted and otherwise deepen rifts in their communities. Principals emphasize the need for district leaders to be aware of the potential political fall-out from public discussion of their schools.

B.2.Leadership in Redesign

Redesign principals face enormous challenges in turning around an underperforming school. They must lead the academic efforts, hire staff, inspire teachers, involve families, solve daily problems, plan ahead, respond to innumerable requests—to name just a few-- in order to move their school out of Level 4 status. In addition, most work in schools with a high percentage of English language learners, with students having limited formal education and high rates of mobility, and who bring the effects of persistent poverty with them to school. Yet, principals must ensure that students meet benchmarks and demonstrate growth in core academic subjects. As mentioned earlier, the redesign principals in this study range in their years of experience as principals—a little more than half of them have less than six years experience—and a majority of them have been at their schools for two years or less. While inexperience can sometimes carry with it enthusiasm and fresh perspective, it is also fair to say that the redesign principals—and perhaps especially the less experienced ones –have a lot on their plates and are at significant risk of burnout. This idea was confirmed in interviews with district leaders, principals, and staff, and the pressure of the three-year time constraint was noted as a leading cause of stress.

Principals’ Role: Expectations and Burnout

The Principals’ Survey followed-up on the ideas of expectations for the three-year period and burnout. Given a matrix of items and responses, principals were asked, “Thinking about the resources available to you, and the three-year timeframe of the SRG grant, how realistic are the following expectations of your leadership?” (see Table 13, below). Of the 24 principals who responded, all but one agreed that the most realistic expectation is



articulation of a clear vision of the school and its mission, followed by “creating a school community that is focused on and engaged in learning” and “implementing effective systems of data collection and analysis.” The first two findings make sense given they are intrinsic to the school redesign paradigm. Data collection and analysis also makes sense as a realistic goal given many schools are using ANet, and both principals and teachers remarked on its utility and effectiveness. It is clear that ANet puts the collection and use of data within reach of principals and staff, and, in interviews, a few principals indicated they have support from the district in managing data.

Principals were split in their response to “Improving students’ social and emotional health,” with half finding it “realistic” and half finding it “somewhat realistic.” Some principals offered comments on their responses, noting the extent of students’ needs and the need for more resources (see comments below and Social-emotional health is discussed at length in section III.B.4 of this report). A similar result was found in response to “Building strong ties with community partners,” though slightly more than half of the respondents found this realistic as opposed to somewhat realistic.

Thinking about the expectations they identified as unrealistic, the survey offered an opportunity for principals to provide comments explaining their responses. Eight comments were offered and four mentioned the social-emotional needs of students. One noted students have “extreme” needs and another noted students are increasingly “needier” and families are fragile. One principal stated “increased supports” would make it possible for their school to meet some of the social-emotional needs of the students, but did not elaborate on the type of support that would help. The challenge of meeting needs, acknowledging the school cannot resolve the issues, but can only manage and support the need was noted by one principal, while another noted the need for additional time to develop and implement strategies addressing social-emotional issues. One principal concisely summed it up by saying, “Additional time and funds.” These comments reflect the extent to which some principals experience the needs of the students and their families as important, but beyond the scope of the school and their office unless additional resources can be found to invest in addressing them.

Full survey results appear in the table below.



Table 13. Expectations of Redesign Principals

Realistic Somewhat realistic Unrealistic

Recruiting and hiring staff that are competent and committed 15 (62.5%) 7 (29.2%) 2 (8.3%)

Articulating a clear vision of the school and its mission 23 (95.8%) 1 (4.2%) –

Fostering and sustaining teachers’ commitment to the redesign plan 17 (70.8%) 7 (29.2%) –

Evaluating teachers’ skills and knowledge 20 (83.3%) 2 (8.3%) 2 (8.3%)

Implementing effective PD structures for staff 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) –

Implementing effective systems of data collection and analysis 21 (87.5%) 3 (12.5%) –

Increasing student achievement so the school meets its academic goals 17 (70.8%) 7 (29.2%) –

Increasing positive students behaviors 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) –

Having a working knowledge of the status of each classroom 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) –

Improving communication with students’ families 17 (70.8%) 7 (29.2%) –

Improving students’ social and emotional health 12 (50.0%) 12 (50.0%) –

Building strong ties with community partners 13 (54.2%) 10 (41.7%) 1 (4.2%)

Creating a school community that is focused on and engaged in learning 21 (87.5%) 3 (12.5%) –

n=24

As discussed above, the issue of burnout for redesign principals is related to the question of expectations for the principal’s role. Overall, about 75% of the principals expressed vulnerability to burnout. Asked the degree to which they recognize the potential for, or already experience burnout, less than half (n=10) indicated “to some extent,” and about one-third indicated “to a great extent.” Of the remaining six, three indicated “not at all,” and three indicated “too soon to tell.” During an interview, one principal spoke of stress on the job, explaining that while he appreciated the positive feedback from the MSVs on improvement in the first year, he did not see the progress as a success and only focused on plans to move forward. He also noted that he was skeptical of every phone call and every visit, knowing that there was always more to be done and asking himself, “what now?” The survey also asked principals to identify measures that are in place to protect them from burnout. Distributed leadership, discussed later in this section, was most the frequently selected response, followed by collegial networks. Just one-third of the principals noted ongoing communications with the district as a measure to protect them from burnout. Three respondents indicated that no protective mechanisms were in place. See Table 14 for full results.



Table 14. Measures to Protect Principals from Burnout


Distributed leadership: shared responsibility across school teams 16 66.7

Collegial networks (principals’ networks, turnaround networks, etc.) 11 45.8

Ongoing communications with the district 8 33.3

Incentives and rewards for successful performance (stipends, contractual conditions) 6 25.0

Ongoing communications with ESE (“think partner,” troubleshooting) 3 12.5

Professional associations 3 12.5

No mechanisms in place 3 12.5

n =24

Distributed LeadershipIt is notable that two-thirds of the survey respondents indicated that distributed leadership protects them from burnout, and during site visit interviews it became evident that it may also work to foster progress in a number of areas, such as effective instruction and sustainable practices, in redesign schools. In schools that had developed effective leadership models, teachers, principals, and other school staff were enthusiastic in their descriptions of how distributed leadership was changing their school and supporting their work. Perhaps most important, principals and teachers talked about how it promoted shared ownership of the redesign work. Distributed leadership models that are successful were observed to empower teachers and staff, and teachers in one school conveyed to the evaluators that they feel accountable for the success of the school. One survey comment stated, “It gave everyone a voice in the progress. Commitment came from all as they were part of the process.” While the constellations of leadership varied from school to school, the leadership teams were generally comprised of the principal, assistant principal(s), curriculum directors, grade level representatives, specialists in ELL and special education, and other staff identified by the principal as critical to the effort. In two schools, a core group of leaders worked directly with the principal, and they in turn worked with grade – or subject–specific teams comprised of teachers and specialists, or with the school’s redesign team. In more than one school, principals stated that distributed leadership has contributed to wide representation of voices across the school and a shared burden of responsibility among staff. One principal stated that it is about creating the “we and the us” required to turn around their school.

Distributed leadership also allows principals to spend more time in classrooms and to remain in better touch with the day-to-day needs and experiences of students and teachers. One school that had a successful team leadership structure, as assessed by the informants’ measure of its success and the teachers’ accounts of school leadership, formed a core leadership team comprised of the principal, the curriculum director, the school’s social worker, and the program specialist. This team met every day after school to review unfinished business of the day, make plans for action as needed, and plan forward. Several staff members mentioned that there was no reasonable way one principal could manage a school with more than 600 students, most of them with special needs of some sort or another, and that the leadership team made it possible for the school to move forward with redesign efforts. Commenting in response to the survey, a principal stated, “You have to have a structure for leadership work. The



principal cannot do it alone and needs to have a vision of creating teacher leaders to build a strong culture.” Teachers noted that this team was highly effective in that they could approach any of the team members (“and not have to wait in line for the principal”) and that they could count on immediate resolution of any challenges they faced. This immediate access to expertise and problem solving allowed the teachers to stay focused on instruction. Teachers also pointed out that sometimes working with their particular student population could be highly upsetting (“heartbreaking and disturbing”) and that they felt like the school leaders were supportive and concerned for them as teachers, again allowing them to continue to working with the academic goals in sharp focus.

Team structures that were working well for leaders and staff also featured consistent communication from the principal or leadership team, and they further distributed leadership, providing time for grade-level teacher meetings, specialists meetings, redesign team meetings, review of data, and other crucial activities. For example, one school’s principal sent weekly memos to the staff that outlined progress, goals, and brief discussions of challenges and plans, as well as extending encouragement. These memos were highly praised by a district leader and the school’s teachers for their insight, utility, and motivational value. Another principal sent “think abouts” – topics for discussion in meetings – to the school staff, encouraging school-wide dialogue on issues of importance to redesign and to their specific goals.

These various activities provided instructional staff the opportunity to have leadership, at one level or another level, in the school. This was evident when one principal commented on accountability, noting all staff feels accountable and takes responsibility for what they are doing in the school, and that there are levels of accountability throughout the school and in relation to the district. A strong example of the responsive leadership at this school is found in the teachers’ report that their common planning time was usually consumed with many administrative tasks and did not allow time to plan collaboratively. In response, the leadership team found time for them to meet so they could have regular “teacher collaborative time (TCT)” that was free of the need to address administrative issues. This group of mostly veteran teachers reported the collaborative planning time was invaluable and that through it they have developed skills and become better teachers. They also noted a level of trust that was remarkable and previously missing from their collegial networks. This action by the leadership team, while seemingly about accommodating teachers’ need for time to collaborate, is more about the degree to which the school leadership values effective instruction and supports its development however possible. Ultimately, it is more about the students than the teachers. This understanding of the connection between distributed leadership and instruction was noted in a survey comment: “There was an effort for distributive leadership this year that led to more buy in, understanding of vision, and increased communication that has been effective in focusing on improved instruction.”

Challenges of Distributed Leadership

Interviews with teachers and staff at six schools, along with review of the MSV Reports and renewal applications revealed that while distributed leadership is working well and generating results in some schools, in others there are real challenges associated with the leadership structures. Teachers in one school revealed that their limited understanding of school redesign compromised their participation in the leadership team. They stated that they did not actively participate in meetings (though another teacher did so) and that they also felt the minutes from the meetings, posted in the teachers’ lounge for the teachers, were not read by many. This suggests that the school and/or district could take a more active role in informing teachers of the issues and activities, and need to take steps to make certain that all stakeholders comprehend the specific language of school redesign. Similarly, at another school, teachers felt their participation in leadership was largely symbolic; one teacher noted that speaking up was not equivalent to being heard. Another challenge mentioned in interviews was finding time for meetings. At one school, grade-level meetings were virtually non-existent because the school’s schedule could not accommodate them; teachers had to have someone cover their classroom during the meeting and high teacher



absenteeism made this impossible. At one school, demanding workloads and the need for leadership team members to be “in the hallways” most of the day posed similar challenges. Finally, in combination with the aforementioned challenges, demands on the principal to attend frequent meetings at the district offices was cited as a reason that school level meetings could not be prioritized.

Also found in review of MSV reports and renewal applications as well as in interviews are issues such as a lack of clarity about who is included on various leaderships teams, and the roles and responsibilities of various individuals and teams. It is also noted that some schools appear to have little or no oversight of SRG implementation, and that some teachers are not aware of the schools’ redesign efforts. Other issues common to schools that struggle with leadership and distributed leadership were poor or infrequent communications regarding goals and expectations, unarticulated goals, and the absence of, or inefficient, structures that serve to integrate the redesign efforts into the daily life of the school.

One principal, responding to the survey, called attention to the way that leadership structures can be helpful, but also noted that in and of themselves they are not effective: “The new leadership structure has provided effective means of communication, focus on data and rapid improvement strategies. It is less than effective because at first we had too many priority areas, and now have refocused our strategies.”

Implications

Distributed leadership provides opportunities that might not otherwise exist for redesign schools, such as flexibility in addressing urgent issues, planning that is grounded in the daily achievements and challenges of the school, shared responsibility for the effort necessary to turn around a school, and a shared sense of the mission and goals of the school. Further, it allows the principal of the school to attend to issues with some selectivity by delegating responsibility to other school leaders. Importantly, two-thirds of principals surveyed identified it as a protection against burnout.

It is evident that for distributed leadership to work in some schools, structural and procedural issues need to be resolved. In some schools, existing conditions make it difficult or impossible to have effective distributed leadership in place. For example, school schedules, district demands on principals’ time, and insufficient staffing can impede regular meeting times that are necessary for redesign efforts. Additionally, principals may benefit from mentoring in regard to effective communication, team building, and other skills that support the development of leadership and accountability. Although mentoring was not specifically mentioned, one survey respondent commented that support in developing leadership capacity was needed, and five principals indicated the need for increased district involvement in developing leadership capacity. Given several comments from principals regarding the importance of dialogue with other Level 4 principals, mentoring provided by SRG principals who have been successful in building strong leadership structures may be good candidates for providing this type of support.

Strategies to enhance the effectiveness of distributed leadership modelsAlthough conclusions about effective leadership models are tempered by the small number of schools that were visited, a review of the MSVs in combination with information gathered during the site visit interviews suggests that some leaders and staff may be implementing strategies that are likely to enhance the effectiveness of their distributed leadership models. Summarized below are preliminary observations about strategies and characteristics associated with models that are perceived to be working and those that are not. Taken together, they may generate a frame for understanding how particular leadership strategies and traits combine to enable – or constrain – successful school redesign experiences.



Strategies and characteristics common to more effective models

Responsive to needs of students and teachers

- Immediate response to challenging situations - Generates actionable plans and follows through- Willing to revise plan based on progress or lack thereof; visit and re-visit goals- Ongoing use of accurate and current student data to inform decisions - Formal and informal observations of classroom instruction with actionable feedback- Reschedules the school day to allow for longer, continuous blocks of academic content and to include

regular common planning and collaboration time- Meet daily to review successes and challenges, problem solve as needed- Provides PD that is relevant to staff, based on assessment and input

Articulates and communicates redesign goals

- Makes goals transparent and communicates them well to staff- Develops a framework for SRG goals and monitors implementation- Creates a sense of “we” and “us”—everyone working together to realize goals

Inclusive leadership policies

- Give all staff the opportunity to have a voice in school decisions and consider their opinions- Give staff autonomy in executing specific goals and help to problem-solve when things don’t go as well

as planned- Provide staff with some expectations that are “non-negotiable” as well as some that are- Shares redesign successes and asks for input regarding challenges- Diverse make-up of teams (grade level teachers, content areas) for multiple perspectives

Strategic use of resources and skills

- Forms fewer teams to allow for a greater depth of focus, start with one or two focused goals that address greatest areas of need

- Principal and VP share curriculum responsibilities (ELA and Math)- Entire staff addresses/acknowledges “difficult” areas and hold themselves accountable- Leaders model desired behaviors and practices - Creates and maintains teacher mentorship program - Uses consultants strategically

Strategies common to less effective leadership models

- Breadth of focus too wide- Lack of clarity regarding composition of leadership teams- Lack of clarity as far as roles and responsibilities- Limited or no evidence of SRG implementation monitoring- Meetings too informal, too irregular, or not well-documented - Not enough time allocated for collaboration and planning- Lack of clear, focused goals- Lack of communication to staff regarding goals/expectations- PD unrelated to staff or student needs- Redesign goals and strategies are not integrated into day-to-day activities; outcomes are simply monitored



B.3. School Redesign and Instruction

Changes in instructional practices that result from SRG were reported to the evaluators in interviews and through the Principals’ Survey. Teachers, district leaders, and principals all reported, with varying degrees of detail, that the redesign grant did result in specific changes in instruction that, overall, appear to be having a positive impact on students’ achievement. In fact, many of the teachers and principals who were interviewed held the belief that coaches and/or specialists were key to the gains their students were making, and that they would continue to be essential for continued progress beyond the funding period.

Coaches and SpecialistsAn almost universal change in instruction in the redesign schools is the increased use of instructional coaches, and curriculum and/or instructional specialists. Coaches and specialists work with teachers and students to provide one-to-one or small group instruction and/or support. The Principals’ Survey asked that principals distinguish between district-based and school-based specialists and coaches so that a distinction could be made between coaches and specialists provided by the district who may also work at other schools, and those who are solely based in their school. As noted in the “District Role” section of this report and as shown in the table below, school-based instructional coaches were found to be “very effective” by almost two-thirds (n=12) of the respondents compared to 26% who found district-based instructional coaches to be “very effective” (this percentage increases to 31% if an adjustment is made for the three principals who indicated that district-based coaching does not occur at their schools).

Table 14. Effectiveness of School- and District-based Coaches and Specialists

Very effective

EffectiveSomewhat effective


Too soon to tell

Not occurring

at my school

School-based instructional coaches

12 (63.2%) 2 (10.5%) 2 (10.5%) 1 (5.3%) 2 (10.5%) –

District-based instructional coaches

5 (26.3%) 5 (26.3%) 2 (10.5%) 4 (21.1%) – 3 (15.8%)

School-based instructional and/or curriculum specialists

9 (47.4%) 6 (31.6%) 3 (15.8%) – – 1 (5.3%)

District-based instructional and/or curriculum specialists

1 (5.3%) 6 (31.6%) 1 (5.3%) 2 (10.5%) – 8 (42.1%)

n=19

Underlining the varied experiences principals have-- depending on their district and school--one principal commented in the survey, “District coaches are not here enough and their work has no impact on the school,” while another stated, “District coaches support redesign goals and support co teacher teams with their instruction and best practices. They listen to the needs of our schools. And do what they can to assist us.”

A similar result is found in regard to district- and school-based instructional and/or curriculum specialists. Controlling for those principals who do not have district-based instructional and/or curriculum specialists, school-based specialists were found to be “be very effective” by about 50% of the respondents compared to about 5% of the district-based specialists. It is noteworthy, too, that 8 of the 19 respondents indicated that there are no district-based specialists providing services at their school.



Most instructional specialists provide direct service to students and work with teachers to develop teaching strategies for individuals or small groups of students. Most schools are using specialists for ELL and mathematics instruction. Coaching is provided to teachers, and primarily consists of support for teaching strategies or behavior management. One principal’s response to the survey outlined the duties of the specialists and coaches, saying:

They monitor the entire curriculum and assessment process--they ensure teachers create data driven and standards driven lessons and assessments. They also ensure that teachers are using interim data effectively. With a large percentage of teachers with less than four years of experience, coaching is crucial in supporting these teachers to be effective educators.

One principal’s comment speaks to the school’s capacity and the job market, noting:

A lack of capacity in my school today prevents me from having these types of school-based specialists. It was hard to recruit sufficiently skilled specialists, so their impact was limited. We are hopeful that in year three we will finally assemble a sufficiently skilled team.

Another noted they have three ELL teachers for 260 students. One school built its capacity to provide small group ESL support by hiring retired teachers to lead small groups of students in English acquisition lessons. This alternative method of increasing the support it provides to its students was regarded by teachers and school leaders as one of the most effective strategies made possible by SRG funding. These results suggest possibilities for additional research regarding coaching and specialists, especially given the importance of these supports to teachers and principals, but especially for students.

Synergy: Results accrue through integrated efforts and strategiesIn much of this report, turnaround efforts are addressed in discrete sections and sub-sections and follow lines of inquiry from the Principals’ Survey and the site visits. This inquiry is fruitful in terms of demonstrating how districts are implementing strategies, and identifying how they are successful and continue to be challenged. What also emerged from analysis of the data are the ways that the various strategies are integrated and inter-dependent. This is very evident in the example of common planning time for teachers. Site visits and survey data point to the ways that effective common planning time – time that is utilized by teachers to learn, collaborate, and reach specified goals – is not simply dependent on the allocation of an hour or two on a regular basis. In descriptions of successful planning time, teachers and principals noted the following:

The extended-learning time was scheduled in a manner that allowed uninterrupted, regular planning time. Curriculum specialists and coaches participated at some level in the discussions that occurred. Teachers felt that the curriculum they used was appropriate for their students and/or they had a role in

selecting an appropriate curriculum. The teachers enjoyed a supportive relationship with their principal that was focused on instruction. The teaching staff was stable and this enabled teachers to develop trust, common goals and values, and

they felt more comfortable taking risks to try new strategies. Teachers were able to bring ideas and strategies from their PD into their common planning time.

Given the importance of effective instruction for the realization of turnaround goals, it is worth noting how the efforts to improve instruction required that the effectiveness of several other elements of the redesign plan worked in order to make the common planning time successful. Throughout the sections that follow, instances of these types of relationships will be made evident even though redundancy may occur in discussion of the results.



Formal Collaboration and Planning TimeFormal structures for teacher collaboration —such as common planning time, PLCs, and grade level meetings — were identified as the best investments of SRG grant funds by several principals and was identified as “very effective” by 63% of the principals responding to the survey (Table 1). Interviews with school leaders and teachers revealed that that some schools have been more successful than others in implementing these structures and sustaining them over time. Teachers in one school explained they have not been able to use their common planning time with any regularity because of the high rate of teacher absences: teachers were required to cover for absent teachers and were therefore unable to attend planning time meetings. Additionally, extended time for learning was added to the beginning of the day and made scheduling the common planning time at the end of the day an impossibility. In this case, one SRG strategy – providing common planning time so that teachers can work together to improve instruction – was impacted by another – the extended time for learning. The result at this school was that teachers who wanted to do so volunteered to meet after school, though they stated they rarely had meetings with all teachers present. Teachers at this school, from several grade levels, were interviewed during the site visit and all reported frustration with the lack of planning time. When asked about the issue, the principal expressed her concern and frustration with the absenteeism and its general effect on the school as a whole. She stated that district and union policies prevented her from taking action to replace staff who did not perform well and did not contribute to the redesign efforts. The principal and assistant principals estimated that about 50% of the staff were not on board with the redesign efforts. In this example, staffing autonomy also has an impact on common planning time.

A different situation was found during a site visit. The principal at this school acted to use the extended learning time to accommodate teachers’ needs and improve instruction. After teachers expressed frustration that the common planning time did not actually allow much time for planning because administrative tasks and PD usurped it, this school’s principal arranged for teachers to add teacher collaboration time (TCT) to their common planning time. Teachers at this school stated that TCT is used solely for collaborating on lessons, pedagogy, and forward planning. This has significant impact on instruction: teams plan curriculum horizontally, identify instructional strategies, quickly gain confidence with new teaching strategies or materials. Teachers report there is better curricular alignment and a sharper focus on student outcomes, and that there is an increased level of trust and cohesion among them. At another school, the principal worked actively to make the common planning time productive and meaningfully aligned with redesign efforts by sending teachers weekly “think abouts” – common topics and readings for discussion. Another strategy used by some schools is to include teacher representatives on the ILT; it is easy to see the relationship between strong grade level teams and effective ILTs: teacher representatives are likely to be more engaged, knowledgeable, and better able to present the grade-level goals, challenges, and successes.

Also noted in the survey by a principal was that their school schedule was able to accommodate about two hours of common planning time per day, plus a four-hour block of common planning time once a week, and stated it has been “amazing” for teachers to co-plan with their grade level content team. Another principal noted that teacher collaboration time contributes to a more cohesive curriculum, the identification of best practices, and also provides a forum for sharing the school-wide instructional vision with teachers. Common planning time was also identified as the best way for ILT's /coaches to communicate with teachers about data, grade level curriculum, and other relevant topics. In the survey, two principals identified time for teacher collaboration as the best investment of SRG funds.

Among the handful of principals who identified challenges to common planning, all mentioned the constraints of the school schedule. Given the overwhelmingly positive view of common planning time and its impacts on instruction, provision of technical support in order to problem-solve scheduling issues could be a good investment by ESE and/or the district. Teachers in one school noted that PLCs are beneficial, but that because they come at the end of the long school day, teachers are tired and do not get the full benefit of them. Speaking about the



organization of the PLCs, she stated that sometimes school leaders do not follow up on teachers’ assignments and so they are lost. Summarizing, she said, “We make some ground, and then fall back, in repetition.”

Extended Learning Time and Restructuring the School Day The Principals’ Survey data indicate that some schools used multiple strategies to meet their requirement for extended learning time, though most frequently they added minutes to and restructured the school day (See Table 16, below).

n=19

There was a range of opinion on the effectiveness of the restructured school day and additional learning time. Some principals and teachers found it valuable and effective, while others found it to be not all effective and problematic, or had no opinion (see Table 1 for the Principals’ Survey results). The impact of extended time was most strongly evident to principals in terms of creation of opportunities for staff planning and collaboration time, and was somewhat evident in improved student growth (see Table 17), though many principals (about 32%) think it is soon to tell what the student impact will be.

Table 16. Impacts of Extended Time Strategies

To a great extent

To some extent

Not at allToo soon

to tellDon’t know

Extent of creation of opportunities for staff planning and collaboration

10 (52.6%) 9 (47.4%) – – –

Extent of association between extended time and improved student growth

3 (15.8%) 8 (42.1%) 1 (5.3%) 6 (31.6%) 1 (5.3%)

n=19

It does not appear that these differences in opinion are clearly associated with other conditions, such as grade level or school size, but rather they seem to be tied to a constellation of factors, such as degree of “buy in” from teachers and community, effective scheduling practices, school leadership, and external constraints such as union rules and even physical location. It is clear, however, that for those schools that have been able to effectively use extended learning time and have restructured their schedules, principals and teachers identify significant rewards associated with the strategy, such as development of a strong culture of teacher collaboration, regular PD activities, more frequent individualized interventions for students, and –though tentative for some – improved student outcomes.


Table 15. Extended Time Option Used by School


Additional minutes added to school day 16 84.2

Restructured school day 9 47.4

Additional time in the summer 5 26.3

Additional time on weekends 4 21.1

Additional time during vacation weeks 3 15.8


In comments from the Principals’ Survey, restructuring the school day was frequently mentioned as the SRG strategy that allowed for more robust common planning time and PD. One principal noted they take advantage of the time to provide tiered instruction in the third and fourth grades. Another school added blocks in literacy and mathematics, and used the time for differentiated instruction in those subject areas. Another, referring to PD, said the time was used to increase teachers’ instructional skills. In another example taken from the Principals’ Survey, the extra time was used for three days of PD, which was used for planning, team building, and sharing vision and redesign plan with all staff. The principal stated the “[a]dditional 3 Saturdays…allowed for collaboration around new initiatives.”

Challenges in implementing extended learning time were also numerous. One school shares a building with another school and thus faces external constraints to flexible scheduling. One principal noted that the scheduling changes they initially made did not work (though what exactly did not work was not specified), so they tried several different schedules during the school year. As one teacher noted during an interview:

The seven-and-a-half hour workday and the neediness of the population is so draining. We had a blast, but it’s tiring at the end of the day, all those things you need to do—the data collection, the going over it—even just correcting their writing. It makes it so much harder when you have extra on your plate. If you really focused on just the little things, it might be as good as going in all these directions to try all these new programs.

Speaking to the need for the redesign program to differentiate among grantees and address the real needs of individual schools, one principal implied that extended time should be required on a case-by-case basis. This principal further stated that, “The entire staff hated this 45 minute daily experience,” and noted that 7:45 am is too early for an elementary school to open, especially for Kindergarten and first grade students. The staff voted to return to the regular schedule beginning fall, 2012. Another principal noted that the restructured day has negatively affected the students’ attendance rates, concluding it “was not a good idea at all.” In an interview, one teacher described the extended time block at her school as somewhat of a “free for all,” and a colleague added to the observation by stating additional time does not always translate into productive time. It was noted by them that school leaders are making changes to their extended-time period so that it is more structured.

Restructuring the Schedule: Principals’ Needs for Technical Assistance and Coaching These comments point to the need some principals may have for technical assistance or coaching from the district and/or ESE so that the extended learning time is productive. In many cases, it seems evident from the survey results that the district could play a more active role in helping the schools design and implement their extended learning time so that it meets the needs of the students and staff. It is possible that schools need additional support staff for the extended day, a cohesive PD plan, or other organizational and resource supports, and need assistance in identifying what they need and how to best execute a restructured school day, as well as help with tasks needed to make the changes. As one principal acknowledged, “We need to use this time better. The time needs to be better structured and used more efficiently.”

Tiered Instruction: Calls for PD and for Differentiated SupportA little less than half of the respondents to the Principals’ Survey indicated tiered instruction was a very effective turnaround strategy (Table 1). Additionally, half of the respondents indicated they would like more involvement from the district in this area while about one-third wanted no change in the level of district involvement. When discussed during interviews with district leaders, many were ambivalent about tiered instruction, or they described practices such as differentiated instruction and placement of students in tiers on a semi-permanent basis. One district leader noted that there are multiple definitions of tiered instruction, and that if ESE were to present a plan for the use of a single, statewide method, her district would embrace it. On the other hand, another district leader said they have implemented tiered instruction, and would not welcome intervention from ESE in this area.



In the survey, principals identified the need for additional PD as the primary challenge to consistent implementation of tiered instruction, followed by meeting needs of the special education population and those of English language learners. Roughly one-third of the respondents also identified inexperienced teachers and student behaviors as challenges. Just one principal indicated there are no challenges. (See Table 18 below.)

Table 17. Primary Challenges to Consistent Implementation of Tiered Instruction


Additional PD is needed so that teachers understand tiered instruction

14 58.3

Meeting the needs of the special education population 13 54.2

Meeting the needs of English language learners 11 45.8

Inexperienced teachers 9 37.5

Student behaviors 8 33.3

Additional PD is needed so that teachers can use data to inform tiered instruction 8 33.3

Many teachers lack strong behavior management skills 4 16.7

The lack of a cohesive, well-articulated instructional plan 3 12.5

No system for managing data 2 8.3

No system for using assessment data 2 8.3

There are no challenges 1 4.2

n=19

In open-ended survey responses, one principal noted “for tiered instruction to work well, the whole system of assessment, scheduling, and staffing needs to be strong and aligned. We have not yet had all elements in place.” Others commented that they are making some progress, and underlined the need for additional PD and time to implement. Pointing to the need for PD and district or state support, one survey respondent noted that the school is making progress in tiered instruction in ELA, but they are struggling to find “great models” for mathematics. Asked directly what could be changed to address the challenges they face with tiered instruction, three respondents noted the need for better and more resources such as training and materials. Also noted was the need for tiered instruction specialists and coaches.

These results indicate the need for a differentiated response to the level 4 schools, with the provision of PD and other resources to those schools that need it, and a supportive assessment of the schools who are implementing to ensure that their practices are aligned with an effective tiered instruction model. Given the multiplicity of practices that were described as tiered instruction, a statewide PD initiative could only benefit the turnaround schools. However, given comments from teachers, principals, and district leaders about the overwhelming number of initiatives that have been introduced in level 4 schools, a cooperative approach to a tiered instruction initiative would likely be more successful than one imposed with time-restricted expectations and outcomes. Overall, there is evidence that a few schools are using tiered instruction, or some variant of it. For example, one respondent to the survey stated they are using benchmark, formative, and summative assessments to drive instruction and in interviews, district leaders from two districts asserted they use tiered instruction. In the remainder of the redesign schools, there is evidence that tiered instruction is “in progress” or has been “put on



hold” until some other priorities are managed, such as leadership or effective instruction. An indicator of the status of tiered instruction in many schools might be found in a district leader’s comment about having so many new teachers on staff : first, they have to learn how to teach the whole class.

Collection and Use of Data to Inform Instruction Related to tiered instruction are the processes for collection and use of data to inform instruction. From interviews with teachers and principals, it is evident that nearly all of the schools have been successful in collecting student data, though there are differences in the types of data they collect and in how they manage it and use it for instruction.

Many schools are using ANet for assessment, and most are satisfied with it; teachers in one school identified it as the most positive change resulting from SRG. ANet coaches and ANet leadership teams help teaching and other instructional staff use data to identify student needs, develop individual student action plans, place students in tiered instruction groups, and inform instructional practices. One teacher was particularly appreciative of the ability to use data to look at whole-class trends as well as individual progress. Several staff at one school also noted the value of having regular, structured, systematic procedures for working with the data. Teachers, specialists, and principals in several schools reported the use of data as an integral part of their schools’ instructional plan, and at one school they noted the importance of collaborative data analysis processes in team-based discussions of student needs and (re)teaching strategies. Most teachers who were interviewed remained positive about ANet even as they spoke of and acknowledged its misalignment with the curriculum. Some teachers stated they could make the needed adjustments and it was reported that ANet would at some point be correcting the mismatch.

In addition to the misalignment of the curriculum with ANet, teachers and staff identified a few more challenges related to data management and use. Addressing a district’s data collection activities, an instructional coach expressed concern that some of the data demands were repetitive and/or unnecessary, and required too much time out of the classroom. In another school, staff felt that the standardized assessments unfairly neglected the inequities and gaps in early education and that growth measures were particularly important for this reason. The teachers also felt that the test questions were sometimes not helpful in identifying student needs and providing the information necessary to inform their teaching strategies. For instance, they said that it was useless to know how fast students could read through a series of letters as opposed to whether they could identify and distinguish the letters from one another.

Results from the Principals’ Survey indicate that about one-third (8) of the respondents would like increased involvement from the district in managing and analyzing student data, while a little more than that (n=9) indicated no change was needed. One principal identified the investment in data management services and student assessment as their best investment of SRG funds.

Professional Development: One Size does Not Fit All Professional development is a key component of the turnaround efforts in most schools. A focus on the development and delivery of PD is afforded by the extended-time schedules. Further, about 80% of the respondents to the Principals’ Survey indicated they find the expectation that they implement effective PD structures is realistic (see Table 13), suggesting that PD activities are within reach of most principals. In terms of the principals’ needs to have more autonomy or more support in implementing PD, they were evenly distributed in the call for increased, decreased, or no change in the level of the districts’ involvement (Table 7).

Most telling about the importance of PD--for at least some of the redesign schools--were comments offered by 7of 20 principals in the Principals’ Survey who identified PD as the best investment of SRG funds. In their comments



about the investment in PD, only one principal offered notes on its specific impact, stating, “Additional PD allowed us to focus on new literacy instruction, positive behavior system, redesign work, and data analysis.” The positive impacts of PD were mentioned in interviews when discussing sustainability. Teachers and principals identify gains from PD as enduring, given a teaching staff that can be retained by the school.

The survey results were underlined during site visits in which teachers and principals noted the benefit of regular PD. That said, these efforts were more successful in some schools than others, for example, teachers in one school mentioned that their PD would be more effective if it was differentiated according to their skills and needs; for example, new teachers might benefit from PD that is not relevant to veteran teachers. This comment echoes those made by principals in relation to PD they would like from the district and/or ESE. In the survey, and in interviews, principals made the point that differentiated PD and support is necessary given the differences among the level 4 schools and their contexts. In general, even when making positive observations about the impacts of PD, a general consensus is that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is not effective and efforts to identify and address specific needs deliver the best results.

B.4. Approaches to Supporting Social-Emotional Health under Redesign

Across all of the study’s data, educators highlighted the challenges of poverty, student mobility, and/or students’ experience with trauma, and the implications of such environmental factors on student behavior, school climate, and students’ academic readiness and achievement. School staff described the importance of stability and consistency in behavioral expectations and staff positions for students who often have little stability at home, the challenges integrating students newly arrived from other countries who speak little English and/or have had little or no prior schooling, and efforts to provide counseling services for students who are dealing with violence, hunger, and other traumas in the home environment. Typically, educators expressed a belief that support in this area is critical. The following comments are illustrative:

Student and family emotional health needs are extreme, and it is an ongoing challenge to support them. This cannot be resolved by the school, only managed and supported.

I don't think that any of the [expectations of redesign principals listed in the Principals’ Survey] are unrealistic, however, increased supports would make it much more possible that we can put in place the socio-emotional and family supports that our students so desperately need. I would love to have the resources, eventually, to create a really robust set of support systems for our students and families in this area.

Social emotional issues related to poverty are a huge issue and grow both in number and intensity. We need more targeted support and interventions in our schools for these if we are to overcome them.

The culture of poverty…impacts the families severely. We have yet to find the magic to support families and ultimately our students.

Ambiguity about schools’ capacity to influence change in this arena Some of the discussions of social and emotional health challenges raised the question of who is responsible for addressing these challenges. For instance, several staff spoke about the perceived limits of school control over social and emotional health variables and requested more outside support from professionals and families, as follows:



This cannot be resolved by the school, only managed and supported.

We need a mechanism to hold parents more accountable for their role in educating their children. That includes getting their children to school on time, making sure they are well rested, supervising them when they do their homework, and monitoring television watching and video games.

We will never be able to change this area. We don't have control over it. We have implemented a connection with [a local health] department. This has connected our families and students who need support with the right support.

In terms of ambiguity about the degree to which schools are equipped to address social emotional health needs, most study participants highlighted lack of capacity as the main issue and request more resources to supplement school efforts. In other words, the understanding that there are limits in school control did not prevent informants from believing in the power for change and the importance of continuing efforts at the school level.

Perceived effectiveness of SRG-supported strategies SRG principals have adopted varying approaches to addressing these needs: some redesign plans foreground social emotional supports and allocate resources in this area in the first year, while others direct attention to this area in the second or third year. When asked to rate the effectiveness of various strategies to address students’ social and emotional health needs on the Principals’ Survey, a majority of respondents rated all strategies listed as either effective or very effective, and most of the other respondents selected somewhat effective (see Table 19 below). No one strategy stood out from the others as particularly effective, although the highest rating for “very effective” was implementation of a school-wide system of support for students (42%). While based on a limited sample, this is an important finding in that it supports suggestions for more systematic – as opposed to just isolated, individualized – efforts to strengthen turnaround schools.

Table 18. Effectiveness of Strategies for Students’ Social, Emotional, and Health Needs

Very effective

Effective Somewhat effective


Too soon to tell

Not occurring

at my school

Implement a school-wide system of support for students (such as social services, student support teams, counseling, nutrition, dental services, etc.).

8 (42.1%) 5(26.3%) 4 (21.1%) 1 (5.3%) – 1 (5.3%)



Develop explicit safety expectations for students.

4 (21.1%) 7 (36.8%) 6 (31.6%) – 1 (5.3%) 1 (5.3%)

Develop explicit behavior expectations for students.

4 (21.1%) 7 (36.8%) 7 (36.8%) – – 1 (5.3%)

Develop explicit safety expectations for staff.

3 (15.8%) 8 (42.1%) 6 (31.6%) – – 2 (10.5%)

Develop explicit safety expectations for staff.

3 (15.8%) 10 (52.6%) 4 (21.1%) – – 2 (10.5%)

Share information about student progress with families.

3 (15.8%) 7 (36.8%) 6 (31.6%) 2 (10.5%) 1 (5.3%) –

Coordinate delivery of community services by community partners.

1 (5.3%) 9 (47.4%) 7 (36.8%) – 2 (10.5%) –

Share student progress information with appropriate community partners.

1 (5.3%) 9 (47.4%) 3 (15.8%) 2 (10.5%) 1 (5.3%) 3 (15.8%)

Implement systems/processes that allow the school to work with families to address students’ social, emotional, and health needs.

1 (5.3%) 10 (52.6%) 6 (31.6%) – 1 (5.3%) –

Form relationships between community partners and the school.

1 (5.3%) 9 (47.4%) 7 (36.8%) – 2 (10.5%) –

n=19

“Other” strategies identified on the survey as effective in promoting change in the area of social and emotional health included:

school-based teams onsite partnerships PBIS implementation of 7 Habits use of the SWIS Data System student health services (e.g., mental health counseling, case management, and a full-time nurse) participation in the Wraparound Zone grant.

When asked what strategies were most strongly associated with progress towards redesign goals in this area, the responses were similar to the “Other” responses listed above. There were a few additions, however, including: “Whole class review that helps identify student needs in and out of school,” the addition of more partner staff so students have more positive adult relationships,” and attention to student needs by the principal and leadership team. Two people also identified school-wide systems of support as most impactful – one for behavioral management and another for general social and emotional health support for students in a school with a large population of students with special needs.



Examples: key factors include onsite services, key support staff positions, professional development, and partnerships

Site visit interviews and school tours reinforced the value of these strategies, providing a few key examples of systems that have been particularly effective in supporting social and emotional health needs. In particular, these examples highlighted the value of onsite services and partnerships and the addition of key social support staff positions. In one school, for instance, a social worker and a family outreach coordinator have been added to a Student Support Team. These staff members work with the school nurse to identify and address individual students’ social and emotional health needs and the impact on their academic performance. The family coordinator speaks Spanish, which has helped to increase parent comfort levels and presence in the building. In addition to working with families, the coordinator has helped to drastically expand school-community partnerships. The social support staff also runs a Parent University. School staff has found that parent education and involvement has had an important impact on students as well as parents: parents are better able to understand and help their children (e.g., with homework), and students see that their parents are engaged and have further motivation to achieve. All of these efforts have demonstrated a clear connection between social-emotional supports and student achievement. Having staff to handle specific behavioral incidents and some of the complex logistical work of identifying and connecting with partners has also relieved some of the everyday burdens on the principal and enabled her to focus on “the big picture.”

In the visit to another school, school leaders and nearly all teachers emphasized their belief that addressing students’ social and emotional health needs has to be concurrent with efforts to address their academic needs. Their commitment to doing so was evident in a number of ways, including the inclusion of a full-time social worker on the school staff who also serves on the school’s core leadership team. This element of the redesign plan– site-based social services/integration of a community mental health agency – has made a significantly affected the culture of the school, and staff believe that these positive changes are associated with students’ increased readiness to learn. Redesign initiatives also provide training for teachers (e.g., on how to identify trauma and link students to social or psychological services). Teachers and staff overwhelmingly reported that onsite social services and PD for teachers has been a key factor in the change that is evident at the school. Many staff also noted their excitement about the addition of an onsite health and dental clinic beginning in the fall of 2012.

As mentioned above, partnerships have been particularly valuable in strengthening social and emotional health initiatives in some SRG schools. In addition to certain single-school partnerships, there are also several valuable partners that work across districts (with some coordination by the district) and support multiple SRG schools. Two such partners are City Year and City Connects, and teachers from different schools spoke of the great value of these partners in providing support inside and outside the classroom from people who understand student needs and can share the burden of responsibilities. City Connects is a group of social work and educational professionals who provide one-on-one and group-level social and behavioral health support. One of the main forms of support from City Connects members is whole-class reviews, in which teams of members meet to discuss the needs of individual students in each class and develop action plans to connect each of those students with appropriate academic and social support services. City Year members provide instructional support to individuals and small groups, as well as support with non-academic issues such as attendance. City Year members have also been particularly influential in transforming school culture through their efforts to get to know students outside the classroom (e.g., acting as lunch buddies and greeting students in the morning). One of the unique values of partnerships like these is that the staff work onsite at the school and become part of the regular staff and school community. This not only allows for continuity in programs and services but also allows staff from the partner organizations to develop deep relationships with students and other staff.



Synergy of SRG strategies yields perceived impact on school culture and students’ attitudes and beliefs about schoolSome educators described powerful examples of changes in students’ attitudes about -- and experiences of --school. These examples, like many others, suggest relationships between the conditions that students experience in school, and potentials for growth in terms not only of social and emotional health but also academic achievement. For instance, union negotiations and other staffing autonomies that have resulted in more stable, committed workforces (i.e., teachers who understand the demands of SRG and want to work at the school) have contributed to more positive school environments that encourage achievement. Educators reported, for example, that when students see that the adults care, they are more motivated to learn. As mentioned elsewhere, a stable workforce also provides students with a sense of trust and continuity that they may not have in their home or community environment. The increased connections between school, family, and community also extend the motivation to learn beyond the school walls: parent engagement and education provide further encouragement for students to succeed and further support for learning (e.g., homework completion) outside of school.

Additional areas of needIn response to questions about challenges in the area of social emotional health, educators typically identified these areas:

parent and community engagement development and coordination of outside partnerships and services school-wide systems to address behavioral challenges (and accountability to check quality and

consistency of existing systems) collaborative planning and reflection time to discuss school-wide and individual student needs adequacy of human resources and staff support the social and emotional health of the adults working to support children and colleagues

B.5. Focus on Sustainability: Planning Needed

District leaders, principals, and teachers tell similar stories about sustainability after the redesign funding ends. While a few district leaders stated that sustainability has been forefront in planning and budgets, most interviewees conveyed worries about the future of the redesign effort in the post-SRG future. Plans shared by district leaders primarily concerned the absorption of some costs by the district, or the phasing out of some positions with the idea that remaining staff, now trained, will be able to accommodate student needs, particularly those of ELL students and those needing supplemental (or tiered) instruction. Some leaders said quite plainly that they are not sure how they will sustain some aspects of their redesign efforts, as district budgets fluctuate from year to year and funds for some positions or services are not assured.

More often heard were doubts and worries about the future. Many principals, staff, and district leaders worry about losing staff members who are instrumental to the redesign effort and have contributed significantly to success, most especially people in leadership roles. Addressing the possible loss of instructional specialists, staff in several schools explained that there is a perceived need for more, not fewer, specialists in the schools, especially in ESL and special education. The specter of losing the specialists is demoralizing for these teachers because they witness firsthand the benefit to ELL and under-performing students. Teachers in one school almost overwhelmingly identified the work with specialists as the key to improved academic performance.

Several principals expressed their dismay at the cycles of improvement and decline that have historically plagued their schools. Improvements are achieved with one initiative, but when funding ends, there is a decline followed by poor student outcomes. In order to preserve and improve on the gains they have made, principals and teachers



stated that resources and commitment to change must persist beyond three years. One principal stated that the SRG funds allow them to provide the services and interventions that are required in order for the students to perform at grade level, or at least progress towards it.

While teachers and leaders recognized that some investments—like those in PD and assessments—can be sustained without continued funding, the loss of staff is seen as damaging to continued progress. One principal stated that sometimes she wishes the school could stay in Level 4 status so that she could continue to receive the resources necessary required to serve her students. She also said that success would be attainable if the student body remained stable, and, as she jokingly added, never left. The high rate of turnover among students along with the continual enrollment of new students means that the need for specialists stays constant in her school. Fears about losing whole programs and partnerships (e.g., City Year, City Connects, Generations, ANet) were also raised in interviews. The reality of these fears came through very clearly in an interview with a social worker, as she had just come from a meeting where she was forced to think about whether to cut one valuable social support service or another.

Overall, principals and staff were confident that certain practices and resources would have life beyond the grant period. Professional development was seen as an investment that would continue to support turnaround, since teachers and staff in many schools were successfully implementing new teaching strategies. However, some staff worried that the extra time available for planning, collaboration, and/or PD could not be sustained. One interviewee pointed out the irony of losing funding at the point at which the school is finally beginning to understand its needs, and argued that the school should actually get a boost in resources at this point.

Asked about the usefulness of district support for sustainability planning, 24% of principals (n=5) reported that it was not happening at their school, and another 38% (n=8) indicated that it was too soon to tell. Only 4 of the 21 principals indicated that the sustainability is useful, while another 4 indicated that it was somewhat or not useful. These are strong indicators that some districts may not be providing enough support, or useful types of supports, for principals.

In reference to questions about sustainability, principals and district leaders also mentioned the short timeframe for SRG. Many suggested a five-year time period, using the first three years to redesign and make rapid changes, and the last two to continue to strengthen systems that brought change, and to address sustainability.

C. Feedback to ESE: Implementation of the School Redesign Grant program

This section presents district and school leaders’ feedback to ESE on various aspects of program implementation. Consistent with the style of this report thus far—reflecting the interrelated nature of findings—some themes have been introduced in previous sections. Overall, study participants expressed appreciation for the technical support that ESE provides on an ongoing basis. District and school leaders call for more such support as well as more targeted feedback and communication with ESE. Additionally, they highlight a need for the Department to better understand the realities of redesign schools and districts. These broad findings and others are presented in detail below.

In response to the question “How useful is ESE’s support in terms of your school’s progress toward change?” principals gave mixed ratings of the utility of most of the components of ESE support presented in the table



below. While no clear pattern emerges from these data, it is notable that responses fall largely in the range of “somewhat useful” to “very useful.”

Table 19. Usefulness of ESE’s Support in Progress Towards Change

Very useful

UsefulSomewhat

useful Not

usefulToo soon

to tell

Not occurring

at my school

District Liaison’s participation in MSV “report outs”

3 (15.8%) 6 (31.6%) 7 (36.8%) 1 (5.3%) – 2 (10.5%)

District Liaison’s participation in walkthroughs or learning walks

2 (10.5%) 5 (26.3%) 6 (31.6%) 1 (5.3%) 1 (5.3%) 4 (21.1%)

Support regarding student performance data that helps drive improvement efforts

2 (10.5%) 2 (10.5%) 6 (31.6%) 3 (15.8%) 3 (15.8%) 2 (10.5%)

Technical assistance and PD 1 (5.3%) 5 (26.3%) 8 (42.1%) 3 (15.8%) – 2 (10.5%)

Feedback on progress in response to MSVs

1 (5.3%) 6 (31.6%) 6 (31.6%) 1 (5.3%) – 5 (26.3%)

Support with renewal applications

1 (5.3%) 5 (26.3%) 8 (42.1%) 2 (10.5%) 1 (5.3%) –

Support for sustainability planning: strategies to remain on track after the funding ends

1 (5.3%) 2 (10.5%) 3 (15.8%) 3 (15.8%) 3 (15.8%) 7 (36.8%)

Support with union negotiations necessary for implementation of the redesign plan

1 (5.3%) 6 (31.6%) 2 (10.5%) 3 (15.8%) 2 (10.5%) 5 (26.3%)

Facilitation of community partnerships, such as social service providers

– 3 (15.8%) 6 (31.6%) 3 (15.8%) 3 (15.8%) 4 (21.1%)

n=19

Interestingly, when district leaders were asked more broadly whether they feel that support from ESE could be improved or enhanced, almost all leaders responded either “No” or that they could not think of anything. Some leaders recognized the need or potential value of further support but spoke of concerns about timing (the need to take certain steps at the district level before being ready for more help) or the utility of the support. Also, some leaders’ concerns reflected a more general reluctance to have the Department micro-managing their work and/or “breathing down their back.” Other district leaders described, more generally, a positive shift in ESE’s culture and approach, citing an appropriate balance of autonomy and oversight.

Sensitivity to Competing Demands on Level 4 Schools

One key theme raised by district and school leaders was the need for ESE to demonstrate increased sensitivity to the competing demands on Level 4 schools. In particular, they highlighted the stresses of extra time, planning,



team meetings, and efforts to address the needs of large populations of high-needs students. With these demands, leaders expressed common frustration about the piloting of the new teacher evaluation system in Level 4 schools. While most leaders and teachers said that they liked the tool itself, the general feeling was that it was simply “too much” on top of other demands. One survey respondent simply stated that “implementing the new evaluation system this year was completely unrealistic.” Several other leaders spoke more generally about the burden of competing demands. One principal outlined some of the major demands and clearly stated his message to ESE:

Stop adding more responsibility on Level 4 schools. It is already a great deal of work to make significant change in a school. To add on the Educator Evaluation to be implemented first, New Mass Frameworks, and the many reports, visits, and conference calls, adds to the stress and responsibilities that these schools already have on their plates.

One district leader explained the challenge in similar terms, calling for increased coordination at the Department level:

Right now, it feels like we’re drinking from a fire hose…Educator evaluation timelines, level 4 timelines, other components of Race to the Top, curriculum development, Wraparound support, Innovation schools, 3-tiered instruction…10 things each with different trainings, webinars, etc. All this is going on, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of coordination at the state department.

Some leaders suggested that ESE create a timeline of overlapping initiatives. Presumably, districts could use this timeline to help manage their competing responsibilities and ESE could use it to better understand and accommodate the needs of individual districts and schools.

Sensitivity to Politics and Public Perception

Some participants have found that ESE lacks sensitivity to––and awareness of––political issues related to redesign schools. In particular, while they understand that the Department may wish to publicly celebrate a redesign school’s accomplishments, they do not feel that it is sensitive to some of the challenges created from such exposure. For instance, redesign principals must contend with public perceptions, including assertions that their schools are disproportionately resourced. They worry, in some cases, that public acknowledgment of their accomplishments and/or discussions that highlight “extra” support given to their schools may be misinterpreted and otherwise deepen rifts in their communities.

On a related note, some leaders caution against the release of documents and/or official announcements that cast their schools in a negative light. Two principals described, for example, particular frustration with the recent public release of a report ranking schools on their preliminary progress:

The report that ESE published only added to the pressure. It ranked schools using percent proficient even though that's not the only MAG, and it made it seem like schools in the "bottom ten" had principals that did nothing.

I think the assumption that a school can be "turned around" in one year is a hard assumption. My school is making some slow but steady progress, yet we have been publicly branded a failure already in the newspaper and in a state report. Pressure is good to help us stay focused, but this is not an accurate view of how organizations change and improve.

Two other leaders spoke of the political and, in turn, personal implications of the decision to pilot the new teacher evaluation system at Level 4 schools. One spoke of the sense of demoralization among teachers as a result of the



implication that they were the poorest teachers and therefore the best “guinea pigs” for evaluation. Another principal described the potential political fallout, and the impact of the fears around that fallout, on teachers and on their ability to benefit from self-reflection:

I don’t think [ESE] understands the political ramifications. In MA, you have a strong political group that’s trying to get evaluation on the ballot. But, if my employment depends on a voted-on evaluation tool, it can’t be a tool for self-reflection and growth. It’s a bad place for Level 4 teachers to be in, because we’re asking them to have faith in us and the tool and to be open about their performance—but, then, if you’re not getting these areas, your seniority is gone.

These statements suggest the potentially negative implications of rankings, labels, and programming decisions on educators and the general public. They point to the unproductive and even detrimental impact on the staff at schools that are already struggling to “keep their heads up and above water.” Again, feedback from school and district leaders points to the need for ESE to be aware of the potential political fallout from public discussion of their schools.

ESE’s Accountability to Schools and Districts

One key piece of formative feedback to emerge across all data sources is a perception that ESE does not hold itself to the same standards to which districts and schools are held. For instance, several leaders expressed frustration that ESE expects them to meet their deadlines, and provides no flexibility on requests for extensions, but then changes its own deadlines. This point may be less important now that ESE has improved the order and consistency of its application procedures and tools, but the perception persists. For example, in response to the survey question, “Is there something else ESE could do, or provide, that would support you as the principal of an SRG school?” one principal wrote, “Stick to their deadlines for reporting out information. We never receive what we are supposed to when they say we should get it. It is very frustrating when we have to hit our deadlines and then they don't.”

Requests for ESE to Spend More Time in Schools

Another key theme to emerge from interviews with district and school leaders––corroborated in MSVs––is the belief that ESE should be more familiar with the schools and districts. Educators would like ESE to understand their individual school needs (e.g., the needs of different student populations) as well as the range of strategies being employed at each school, and to provide ongoing, customized feedback and support reflecting this understanding. One principal suggested, for example, that ESE take the same approach in assessing teachers that teachers take with student assessment: more frequent observations and the provision of formative feedback throughout the year.

School Redesign Tools and Processes

This section explores principals’ and district leaders’ reflections on key SRG tools and processes.In response to the question “Given your experience as an SRG principal thus far, how useful have the following tools been in promoting change at your school?” principals offered a range of responses. As above, the responses fall largely in the range of “somewhat useful” to “very useful.”

Table 20. Usefulness of ESE’s Redesign Tools for Promoting Change

Very useful


Not useful

Too soon to tell

Not occurring



at my school

SchoolWorks site monitoring visits

6 (31.6%) 6 (31.6%) 5 (26.3%) 2 (10.5%) – –

Measurable annual goals (MAGS)

3 (15.8%) 11 (57.9%) 4 (21.1%) 1 (5.3%) – –

Redesign renewal application 2 (10.5%) 7 (36.8%) 8 (42.1%) 1 (5.3%) 1 (5.3%) –

Redesign application 2 (10.5%) 10 (52.6%) 7 (36.8%) – – –

n=19

Two survey respondents suggested that the value of the tools consists in their complementary natures, and that, together, they provide leaders critical information:

All of these tools were great information, and the challenge was how to immediately address weaknesses in such a short period of time.

They all work in conjunction with a leadership team and principal who know what and how to plan, prepare, and perform.

Schools and districts showed considerable variety in their overall use of the tools throughout the year. Some used them regularly in leadership team meetings and collaborative planning time, while others seemed to use them more exclusively as an initial planning tool. Variety in principals’ visions likely accounts for some of this variation in use of the tools. For example, one principal directs his staff, on an ongoing basis, to ask themselves what makes this reform effort different from past efforts. This question directs them back to their original redesign goals and represents an ongoing process of reflection and reassessment. It is notable that a few leaders commented on how they would like to be able to use the redesign plan with their staffs but did not have the time to reshape the long document into something more practical.

Monitoring Site Visits

Overall, district and school staff offered positive feedback on the MSVs. Broadly, comments suggest that the visits provide school staff with actionable feedback and constructive criticism, help school teams to focus on a manageable set of priorities within a larger mission, and provide an important outside perspective on school strengths and weaknesses in a mostly collegial and non-judgmental manner. Illustrative comments from the Principals’ Survey include:

The Monitoring Site Visits were helpful because they gave direct feedback from all sources about the school’s strengths and weaknesses.

The Schoolworks site visit we just received (year 2) was incredibly useful. The team was extremely professional and helpful and provided really useful feedback.

MSV- allowed clean eyes to come in and see what we are doing and give feedback on our work. Helped to focus our efforts.



Despite the overall sense of satisfaction with the MSVs, most respondents and interviewees still felt that the process could be improved. The most common concern was that the visit did not provide evaluators with sufficient understanding of everyday experience and context at each school to enable them to make the most accurate judgments and helpful recommendations. The main source of concern was the limited time that the evaluators spend at each school. District and school staff not only felt that the “snapshot” three-day visit was an insufficient amount of time to get the full picture, they also noted that the timing of the individual classroom visits sometimes did not allow evaluators to see the full scope of teacher skills and practices. For instance, teachers noted that sometimes the evaluators came to the classroom after they had already posted the objectives. One teacher elaborated on this point, stating that what is happening during any five-minute interval in a classroom is context-dependent and that higher-order thinking (one criterion upon which they are judged) may not be appropriate given this context. She gave the example of a vocabulary review for ELL students or a mathematics review in advance of MCAS. The teacher said that this approach of snapshot judgments leads to the idea that regular classroom activities should be suspended during the MSV so that teachers can “put on a show” for the monitors.

There was also some concern that the MSV evaluators did not spend enough time talking to teachers. In addition to more focus group and/or interview time during the visit, one recommendation was for the evaluators to follow-up with teachers after the classroom visits to allow them to respond to feedback from the observations, with the possibility of correcting misperceptions. This recommendation also tied into concerns about the nature of the feedback; some teachers felt that the school-wide feedback was of limited value because they did not know whether they were included in the “X percent” identified as exhibiting a given strength or weakness. These teachers felt that it would be more helpful to have individualized feedback, similar to that which they receive from their instructional coaches. Others described the wrap-up or debriefing session that SchoolWorks currently conducts as inadequate. One district leader reported that this session did not give the school sufficient time to digest the feedback before writing the follow-up action plan and goals. One of the District Liaisons involved in the MSV debriefing agreed that the school did not have enough input into the reflective process.

Leaders suggested that another barrier limiting evaluators’ understanding of context and progress was the fact that there is no baseline MSV prior to SRG implementation. One person suggested that the MSV take place as early in the year as possible for this reason. Additionally, respondents suggested that the same evaluators return to a school to conduct all subsequent MSVs. One principal wrote, for example, “It is important that some of the same team members come back for other MSV so they can see the growth that has happened.” A few people also recommended that MSV evaluators be educators themselves so that they have firsthand understanding of the complexities of school life and teacher experience.

Measurable Annual Goals (MAGs)

Study participants expressed a variety of opinions relating to the MAGs. Particular challenges were noted with respect to the non-academic MAGs (e.g., they are subjective, aggregated, and difficult to measure). Difficulties related to measurement include teacher absences (teachers counted as absent when they are out for PD) and early dismissal of students (confidentiality of health data). A few participants reflected that they were initially unsure what the categories meant and were not sure how high to aim, or how ambitious to be in setting their goals. One principal wrote, for example, “MAGS are so general that they have not been very helpful.” That said, some leaders described them as a source of meaningful discussion, reflection, and/or focus, and noted their use in planning meetings. One principal suggested that ESE provide more regular updates on the MAGs data, as follows:

MAGS: I like having targets to aim for, but DESE does not keep the school updated on their progress in these targets. I had to ask where I stood. Schools want to hear from the state on how they are doing officially; we should not have to call and ask.



SRG Applications

While acknowledging that ESE’s control over timing is somewhat limited by federal mandates, district and school leaders still expressed concern and frustration with the short time frame to complete both the redesign applications and the reapplications. A few leaders suggested extending the time, e.g., by issuing the grant earlier or honoring requests for minimal – even day-long – extensions. Although there was some understanding that the deadlines result from federal mandates, the feeling persisted that something could be done, especially for districts with multiple schools. As noted above, some leaders proposed that ESE publish a calendar of all the initiatives and deadlines, so that the pressures on districts are apparent, and so districts can plan for staff and consultants as needed.

Some districts noted that the short time period for completion of the application meant that they had to minimize some important collaborative, team-building processes. The net effect was that they had more team-building work to do as the school year began. Many district leaders remarked that the second-year process was better, since the expectations were clear, the application forms were familiar, and the alignment between turnaround plans and redesign plans was improved.

District leaders reported that the application processes and materials (e.g., stakeholder meetings, redesign plan) that drove the collaborative process involved in writing the application were a crucial factor in making progress during their first year. Interviewees pointed to the importance of collaboration in developing a mission and commitment to the mission, team leadership, community partnerships, and, generally speaking, imagining a new school culture.

In discussions of the application and monitoring tools and processes, principals from multiple districts also noted concerns with the feedback process. In particular, these leaders described a lack of consistent, ongoing, direct feedback from ESE. Two principals described receiving very positive feedback in the few initial meetings with ESE and then feeling quite surprised by the more critical feedback and tone of their reapplication assessment. One or two school leaders also explained that they were not included in meetings between ESE and the district to discuss such important feedback and decisions. Rather, they indirectly received the information from their district contacts.

RenewalsA few interviewees offered reflections on the renewal applications. A few principals were somewhat surprised to receive a lower than expected score on their schools’ renewal applications, particularly given prior messages from Department meetings and other reviews. These principals had understood the tool to be a forum for self-reflection, an opportunity to identify some of the successes and challenges experienced thus far, and were somewhat surprised by requests for more specific data In part, the format—largely narrative rather than quantitative—reinforced this understanding. One principal commented on the need for clarity with respect to renewal applications, as follows: “Renewal application—somewhat useful in reflecting on our work but needs to be clearer in how detailed DESE wants the school to be.” Finally, some principals noted that rubrics and scores were not readily available and that the Department did not respond to certain inquiries about their renewal applications. In addition to clarifying the expectations, school staff suggested that ESE provide an exemplar of a completed reapplication (and application).

A call for Support with the Application and Reapplication ProcessesIn their efforts to address the challenges with the application process, leaders also emphasized the importance of having adequate staff support from ESE and other external organizations. Several district leaders expressed



appreciation for the help of the District Liaison during the application process, as a critical thinking partner as well as a source of connection to ESE and external resources. Others described the important help they received from outside consultants (e.g., one district worked with a consulting group that led them through an extensive, eye-opening needs assessment process). Despite the praise for this support with the thinking process, however, many leaders felt that support for the actual writing of the application was inadequate. While they understood that the Liaison could only have a limited role as a result of the competitive application process, some people were surprised and frustrated by the fact that the Liaison was not more of a help in the writing process. They explained that they did not realize just how competitive the process was in the beginning and felt that the initial message from ESE was that the department wanted to do everything it could to help everyone succeed.

Regardless of the specifics, the overall message from leaders was that they wanted more support with the application process, whether from ESE or others. One principal suggested that ESE or the district “hire a grant writer [to] whom we can feed the information,” stating that “we should not have to spend an additional 50 hours doing this work as we are trying to do nearly 100 other things.” An assistant principal during the site visit also expressed her disappointment with the inequity in support across schools; her school did not receive the support of an outside consultant as others did. She spoke of the particular importance of such support for rookie administrators like herself and felt that the lack of support for her team during the grant writing process was at least in part responsible for the overly idealistic or “wish list-like” nature of the school’s first proposal.

Role of the ESE Liaisons: Opportunities for Enhanced Roles and Responsibilities

Despite their limited capacity to support schools with the actual writing process, all but one of the District Liaisons appeared to have an active role in assisting schools with the application process. At least three of the liaisons also participated in the learning walks/walkthroughs and the MSV processes. Liaisons received praise for their value as “think partners” and as sources of connection both to ESE and to external resources. At least one district leader also expressed appreciation for the following specific supports: responses to early clarifying questions, willingness to ask difficult questions, outsider perspective, balance of feedback and expertise with school autonomy and empowerment, time spent in the schools (as a bridge in understanding between districts, schools, and ESE), support with sustainability planning, help (re)focusing on SRG goals, sharing of lessons from other districts, technical expertise, assistance in navigating ESE, help keeping the school informed of ESE changes or updates, and overall accessibility. Only one interviewee offered criticism of her ESE Liaison, explaining that she was sometimes more directive than supportive and tended to connect them with outside resources as opposed to providing direct help herself.

Despite the overall satisfaction with the current roles of these three District Liaisons, comments suggested opportunities for enhancement. First, one of the four liaisons appeared to have almost no presence in school s up to this point, though district leaders did anticipate that her role would be greater in the coming grant year. There also appeared to be some variation in the extent to which different schools and districts used the liaison for the supports listed above. In fact, one leader said that she would have taken greater advantage of the support had she known the full benefit from the start. This variation, as well as the somewhat unexpected frustrations with the limits on the liaison’s involvement in grant writing, suggest an opportunity for further clarification of the liaison role and responsibilities (both those that might be standardized and those that might be optional). Other requests for support from ESE also suggest opportunities for new liaison roles and responsibilities. These include general requests (e.g., greater awareness of demands and understanding of school needs and context) and specific requests (provision of exemplar documents, help linking the Level 4 and SRG plans).



Further support

Some leaders cited a few examples of possible further support from ESE in the areas of professional development, networking, and staffing. It is important to note that some informants qualified their requests, suggesting that they only wanted the help if it took certain form (e.g., uniform PD and collaborative rather than top-down networks). Requests included:

o Professional development focused on tiered instruction: Approaches to tiered instruction vary widely across districts, resulting in differing levels of understanding and application. Comments suggest a need for standardized professional development in this area.

o Opportunities for exchange of experiences: District leaders expressed interest in opportunities to learn from colleagues working in school redesign. Some forums for this type of exchange already exist, and are appreciated by participants: the Urban School Network, various online forums, and the Principals’ Network. Both district leaders and school staff requested that ESE organize more of these forums. For example, some Turnaround Officers would appreciate “job-alike” type seminars and other opportunities to share experiences with colleagues working in similar conditions across the Commonwealth. Site visit interviewees also expressed an interest in networking opportunities with other school staff (including teachers as well as school leaders). In these discussions, an important sub-theme emerged: as with the requests for standardized professional development, informants qualified their requests with some concerns. While leaders call for opportunities to learn from and with their colleagues, steps need to be taken to ensure that networks allow for truly collaborative, open dialog. One principal identified a need, for example, for “real collaborative networks that are not driven by top down mandates, issues and ideas [but that are] authentic opportunities to share voices and best practices within the network and district.” Another principal said that, while he appreciated the limited opportunities he had to network with other SRG principals, the conversations were sometimes limited by differences in leaders’ overall willingness to share, time constraints, and fears about publicly highlighting the strengths of individual schools.

o Increased staffing capacity: Finally, some leaders—especially those in larger districts—suggested that ESE may need to increase the number of staff they make available, including Liaisons.


School Redesign Grant Conclusions and Recommendations

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

Managing reform

School redesign offers new resources and strategies that offer opportunities for remarkable transformation in historically underperforming schools. At the same time, the nature of the work—multiple overlapping, interdependent initiatives—has led principals and others to conclude that in managing this multi-layered reform, the importance of keeping focused cannot be underestimated. In fact, this was one key lesson articulated by several redesign principals: asked what advice they would give to colleagues starting on a redesign path, many principals suggested the need to select a limited set of narrowly focused priorities. Many principals also found that the MSVs and the SRG renewal applications were particularly useful because they identify a few key priorities. Some principals discovered, as well, that district-provided supports such as learning walks, data management services and monitoring of their school’s progress were useful because they helped to keep the school’s focus on its redesign goals.

The districts’ role in redesign, and the district’s capacity to support and manage redesign efforts

School redesign calls for a systematic approach to school change: coordination, integration and alignment are the cornerstones of significant and sustainable improvement. In order for redesign to work, the need for integrated, coordinated systems and approaches at all levels (state, district and school) cannot be overstated; staffing, assessment, curriculum, and scheduling—to name just a few of redesign’s key components—are closely intertwined. In an environment of accelerated and dramatic change, districts are called on not only to manage the new demands that accompany redesign (e.g., new partnerships, new grant mechanisms, heightened need to support schools in the particular focus of their redesign efforts) but also to conduct the routine operations that become so much more critical in a context of dramatic and accelerated improvement (e.g., timely hiring of staff, timely delivery of customized professional development). While efforts to systematize supports to schools are evident, the study suggests that, largely, redesign efforts still hinge on the efforts carried out by designated—and, typically, isolated-—individuals in districts. Study participants noted that in some cases, efforts are not coordinated within the district and between the district and the school, or in other cases, that efforts may even contradict one another. They described, as well, a notion of missing links in the system, to the extent that information conveyed to one individual at the district office is frequently not disseminated as it should be, or is not acted upon. Overall, evidence suggests a need to reinforce district-level capacity so that knowledge and awareness are disseminated more broadly and are translated into efforts to effect change at the school level.

Implication: The study suggests that while schools have had to undergo a process of comprehensive self-analysis and reflection under redesign, parallel processes have not yet been introduced at the district level. Many districts do not appear to engage in systematic evaluation and assessment of their own processes. This is critical due to the interrelated nature of redesign efforts. For example, bus schedules need to be coordinated with extended day options, principals should not be called from their schools to attend district meetings on those days that school Leadership Team meetings are held, etc. ESE could bring a range of tools and approaches to these efforts: the MSV protocol could be expanded and/or modified to include a more precise range of redesign supports at the district level; revised messaging to superintendents and/or PD or professional networks’ agendas could be focused on system-wide capacity-building, with an eye toward integration of district and school plans and an assessment of the ways in which district-level capacity aligns with the identified needs of the redesign schools; and increased attention could be brought to questions of alignment within the system (e.g., the ways in which learning walkthroughs align with official teacher evaluation systems; the coordination of staffing, scheduling and assessment). Conversely, those districts that may already demonstrate efforts to bring about much-needed



coordination and integration of the various elements of the system could be further studied so that their promising practices can be shared.

The principal’s role in redesign: leadership development

In addition to articulating a clear vision and fostering buy-in from staff, redesign principals are also responsible for managerial and operations tasks critical to making redesign work. In this respect, some of the most typical challenges that principals face in redesign are scheduling and budgeting. Among the challenges to common planning, for example, are the constraints of the school schedule. Given the overwhelmingly positive view of common planning time and its impacts on instruction, provision of technical support in order to problem-solve scheduling issues could be a good investment by ESE and/or the districts.

Principals are developing a range of distributed leadership models in their schools. Distributed leadership provides opportunities that might not otherwise exist for redesign schools, such as flexibility in addressing urgent issues, planning that is grounded in the daily achievements and challenges of the school, shared responsibility for the effort necessary to turn around a school, a shared sense of the mission and goals of the school, and increased opportunities for teacher growth. Significantly, two-thirds of principals surveyed identified distributed leadership as a protection against burnout.

Implication: It is evident that for distributed leadership to work in certain schools, structural and procedural issues need to be resolved. In some schools, existing conditions make it difficult or impossible to have effective distributed leadership in place. For example, school schedules, district demands on principals’ time, and insufficient staffing can impede regular meeting times that are necessary for redesign efforts. Additionally, principals may benefit from mentoring in regard to effective communication, team building, and other skills that support the development of leadership and accountability. Given several comments from principals regarding the importance of dialogue with other Level 4 principals, mentoring provided by SRG principals who have been successful in building strong leadership structures may be good candidates to provide this type of support. More broadly, principals value opportunities to exchange experiences with their Level 4 colleagues; they call for ESE and districts to establish and/or expand networking opportunities.

Redesign and instruction

Study participants suggest that redesign affords the opportunity to develop and maintain effective instruction by bringing together certain key factors: a stable teaching force, specialists and coaches, productive and focused common planning time, relevant professional development, collaborative structures, curriculum that is appropriate for the students, and a principal who is supportive and focused on instruction. Many informants cited extended learning time and PD as key to their effective instruction, though many teachers and principals also suggested room for improvement, including the need for more differentiated PD. Common planning time and collaboration also received mention as tools that promote effective instruction, though, again, there were some qualifications: these two tools were only effective when they were well integrated into schools’ schedules and tied to school-wide instructional goals.

Implications: The interdependence of redesign efforts in promoting opportunities for effective instruction was evident in the data, and examples of such interdependence may provide a meaningful point of entry for interventions in schools that continue to be challenged in this area. For instance, redesign promotes opportunities for professional development (e.g., through flexibilities in time and scheduling that allow for a variety of structures for staff collaboration), and efforts by districts and principals to differentiate this PD so that it is relevant to participants’ skill sets may help some schools gain ground in improving instruction. Union negotiation around staffing is another component of redesign that impacts instruction and may be an important factor in redesign efforts moving forward. The instability of the teaching staff, for instance, emerged as a key problem in



one school and may reflect a more widespread challenge. Some schools also anticipate that they may face future instability among staff if certain protections from union rules end after the three grant years. Teachers who share the goals and responsibilities for school redesign have in many cases worked with diligence to improve instructional practices and become better teachers. Their collective investment and positive impact needs to be preserved in order for the schools to continue to progress. Overall, findings point to the following recommendations for districts and ESE in the efforts to preserve and extend instructional progress:

Steps toward maintaining stability in redesign schools’ teaching forces, including the preservation of negotiated agreements with unions and/or additional support in negotiating agreements that serve the interests of SRG teachers and students;

Differentiated PD and instructional support services, driven by deep and up-to-date awareness and understanding of students’ and staffs’ strengths and needs; and

Efforts to coordinate and/or align related elements of the school- and district-level systems, such as staffing, assessment, curriculum and scheduling.

“One size does not fit all”: targeted feedback and differentiated PD

One clear message to emerge from the study is that districts and schools value timely, customized feedback on their progress. Principals, in particular, called for more ongoing/frequent reviews of performance, more meetings with district leaders (including teachers), and more differentiated professional development (preferably on-site). Site visit interviews also supported these requests; teachers expressed a desire for more targeted, individualized feedback from state and district evaluators, and school leaders cited a lack of direct and ongoing district communication and feedback on redesign plans and implementation challenges. Largely, educators would like ESE to understand their individual school needs (e.g., the needs of different student populations), as well as the range of strategies being employed at each school, and to provide ongoing, customized feedback and support that reflects this understanding. One principal suggested, for example, that ESE take the same approach in assessing teachers that teachers take with student assessment: more frequent observations and the provision of formative feedback throughout the year.

Implication: Both districts and ESE should work toward strengthening data management services, communication processes and review procedures. Suggestions include increasing the frequency of meetings to review progress, spending more time on learning walkthroughs, and customizing supports to respond to identified needs.

Feedback to ESE

1. Recognize competing demands on Level 4 schools

One key theme raised by district and school leaders was the need for ESE to demonstrate increased sensitivity to the competing demands on Level 4 schools. In particular, they highlighted the stresses of extra time, planning, team meetings, and efforts to address the needs of large populations of high-needs students. With these demands, leaders expressed common frustration around the piloting of the new teacher evaluation system in Level 4 schools. While most leaders and teachers said that they liked the tool itself, the general feeling was that it was simply “too much” on top of the other demands. Additionally, they noted overlapping deadlines with respect to ESE and other initiatives. Although there was some understanding that the deadlines result from federal mandates, the feeling persisted that something could be done, especially for districts with multiple schools. One district leader proposed that ESE publish a calendar of all the initiatives, so that the pressures on districts are apparent, and so districts can plan for staff and consultants as needed. Also, principals request (from ESE and the district) relief from multiple managerial demands so as to be able to focus on instruction.



Implication: ESE could create a calendar of overlapping initiatives. Presumably, the districts could use this calendar to help manage their competing responsibilities, and ESE could use this timeline to understand and better accommodate the needs of individual districts and schools.

2. Spend more time in schools

Typically, leaders express the wish that ESE representatives would spend more time “on the ground” at their schools. Largely, educators would like ESE to understand their individual school needs (e.g., the needs of different student populations), as well as the range of strategies being employed at each school, and to provide ongoing, customized feedback and support that reflects this understanding.

3. Clarify and/or expand the role of the district liaison

Leaders’ understanding of the liaison’s role—and the degree to which liaisons are called on to work with districts—varies from site to site. Overall, those who use liaisons expressed appreciation for the following specific supports: responses to early clarifying questions, willingness to ask difficult questions, outsider perspective, balance of feedback and expertise with school autonomy and empowerment, time spent in the schools (as a bridge in understanding between districts, schools, and ESE), support with sustainability planning, help (re)focusing on SRG goals, sharing of lessons from other districts, technical expertise, assistance in navigating ESE, help keeping the school informed of ESE changes or updates, and overall accessibility.

Implication: ESE should clarify and/or better communicate the role of the liaisons, and/or increase the number of liaisons.

4. Demonstrate increased awareness of political sensitivities

Leaders call for an increased awareness of, and sensitivity to, political issues related to redesign schools. In particular, while they understand that the Department may wish to celebrate—publicly—a redesign school’s accomplishments, redesign principals are often contending with public perceptions, including assertions that their schools are disproportionately resourced, and they are concerned that public acknowledgment of their accomplishments may be misinterpreted and otherwise deepen rifts in their communities. On a related note, some leaders caution against the release of documents and/or official announcements that cast their schools in a negative light.

5. Calls for additional support

Calls for further support from ESE include differentiated professional development, professional development in the area of tiered instruction and the establishment or expansion of authentic opportunities for Level 4 networking.


School Redesign Grant Appendix A

Appendix A: Research Plan

School Redesign GrantResearch Plan

A. Background

In summer 2011, the UMDI Research and Evaluation group was contacted by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) to propose a scope of work for evaluation services and products to respond to the School Redesign Grant (SRG) program office’s information needs. In the ensuing months, UMDI participated in conversations with the ESE Evaluation Coordinator and the Turnaround Office program staff, and reviewed a range of documents that ESE made available. Additionally, UMDI was directed to communicate with an external consultant who has been providing technical support to SRG, Brett Lane/Institute for Strategic Leadership and Learning. We participated in one telephone call with him.

In December 2011, UMDI developed a scope of work1 delineating purposes, data collection activities, deliverables and a budget for the period December 15, 2011 through July 31, 2012. This research plan develops the scope of work in more detail (tasks and timelines, responsibilities, and confidentiality measures) and is intended as a resource to guide planning and implementation of UMDI’s evaluation of the School Redesign Grant.

B. Overview of the School Redesign Grant

Two cohorts received funding in the fall of 2010 to implement redesign plans aimed at dramatically improving student achievement. Cohort 1 comprised 12 schools from three districts (Boston, Chelsea and Springfield), while Cohort 2 comprised 18 schools in eight districts (Boston, Fall River, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn, Springfield, and Worcester). Of these, 10 schools have adopted the Turnaround model, 18 have adopted Transformation, and two have adopted the Restart model. Five districts received funding to support the implementation of their schools’ redesign plans: Boston, Fall River, Holyoke, Lynn, and Springfield. A third cohort is anticipated, but timing is unclear at the time of this writing.

With respect to evaluation and progress monitoring, our understanding is that the program office is confident that MAGs and MSVs provide adequate information about SRG schools’ and districts’ implementation status. Additionally, the program office is confident that early delineations of rapidly improving schools (the October 2011 policy brief “Preliminary Analysis, referenced above) are valid. The highest priority question that program officers articulate is, “As implemented in Massachusetts, does SRG work, and if so, under what conditions?” Additionally, the program office has expressed an interest in assessing how ESE has implemented the SRG grant thus far and using this information to support improvements in implementation.

The evaluation design presented in the following pages builds on this understanding.

C. Purpose and Overview of Research Design1 Note that one scope of work was prepared to describe and explain UMDI’s overall SRG evaluation design, and another (related) scope of work, including a separate budget, was developed to describe and explain the Boston Public Schools component of the SRG evaluation design.


UMDI’s evaluation is designed to meet two purposes:

to provide ESE with the type of formative feedback that would support continuous improvement in school, district and ESE implementation of SRG.

to capture evidence of short and long term changes, developing explanations of change (progress, success) that is likely associated with elements of SRG. The evaluation will ultimately yield explanations of factors that likely contribute to turnaround in underperforming schools. 2

The evaluation follows an emergent design, such that questions posed in an initial phase yield preliminary findings that are further explored in a next phase. This time-phased approach allows for testing and confirmation or disconfirmation of findings on an ongoing basis, and allows ESE to develop a growing knowledge base about what works and does not work as schools move through their turnaround processes.

D. Research Questions

The evaluation is driven by two main research questions:


This component addresses ESE’s implementation of the program both thus far and in the future. Anticipated areas of focus include ESE’s process of school/district selection (e.g., application requirements such as demonstrating readiness on specific indicators), progress monitoring, the structuring of funding, and ESE’s implementation support.


o To what extent and in what ways have tools and procedures employed in the start-up phases proven useful, reliable; and in what ways are modifications suggested?

o What lessons learned should inform ESE’s continued implementation of the SRG program? What, if any, implications for program managers and policy-makers are suggested?


2 Note that while robust explanations will be built over time, the SRG redesign plans are complex and schools’ turnaround strategies and associated effects are assumed here to be highly context-dependent (i.e., reflective of the particular histories, personnel, and other salient characteristics of the participating schools and districts). Explanations, conclusions, lessons learned and other results generated through this evaluation are therefore anticipated to be useful to the extent that they will be grounded in patterns and trends evident in the portfolio. They may be potentially generalizable or transferable to cases with similar characteristics, but the study is not conceived for predictability. That is, unlike statistically generalizable conclusions that would emerge from an experimental or quasi-experimental design, the conclusions generated here will achieve credibility and trustworthiness through standard qualitative research strategies such as triangulation across multiple data sources and through multiple data collection methods which have been customized to the schools and districts being studied. Limited generalizability may follow from careful examination of new cases, keeping in mind that the findings developed in this study are situated in fuller explanations of complex phenomena.


This component develops ongoing explanations of turnaround strategies that have worked or not worked, under a range of conditions. It explores the relationships between various inputs (e.g., newly hired staff, district’s support role) and progress or success, over time, with respect to schoolwide improvement and student achievement.


o How have schools implemented their turnaround plans to date? What strategies have been supported by SRG funds to date?

o Which strategies and/or factors are associated with schools’ progress (implementation and progress toward benchmarks) and success, as defined by the program? Which factors have helped or hindered implementation, under what conditions?

o When and how are the various turnaround models associated with improvements?

o Which elements of each of the turnaround model(s) are associated with positive or negative change?

o To what extent and in what ways do school and district characteristics influence progress?

o What short or long term implications, if any, do the study’s findings suggest for ESE, school and district leaders, policy-makers?

Note that schools’ turnaround plans necessarily target particular objectives (e.g., enhanced school/district administration, curriculum and instruction); these objectives will drive our process of articulating questions and collecting data. For example, we may find that factors such as leadership structures, leaders’ allocation of staff time, and other elements of school/district leadership are critical to an understanding of progress.

E. Data Collection Methods and Timeline

This document develops activities and a timeline through July 31 2012, leading to emergent findings about progress across schools/models/contexts. Repeated data collections and richer syntheses will be developed over Years 2 and 3, leading to fuller explanations of those elements of turnaround strategies associated with progress and success. This evaluation begins mid-fiscal year. Activities, timelines and deliverables through July 31 are specified in this document.

Data collection activities will be conducted in three phases: I) Start-up; II) Interviews and Survey; and III) Site Visits. These activities are described below. Note that most of the activities address both research questions (feedback on ESE’s implementation, and progress associated with SRG). Supporting tasks and timelines for their completion, as well as responsible parties, are noted by phase and presented in table format, below.

Note on the need for timely implementation of supporting tasks: The evaluation is built around an ambitious timeline, and it calls for the participation of busy professionals. The degree to which the evaluation ultimately achieves its purposes hinges on the cooperation of study participants. Throughout the study, ESE’s clear and


visible support of the evaluation will be critical to securing access and ensuring participants’ cooperation with the study.

Boston Public Schools component: The lines of inquiry in Boston mirror the inquiry presented here, but are targeted specifically to the Boston Public Schools context. Supporting tasks, timelines for their completion, and responsible parties relative to Boston, are included in the tables below.

Phase I: Start-up (document review, ESE interviews, instrument preparation, and sampling plan )3

Mid-December - January

This phase is intended to further reinforce UMDI’s understanding of the SRG portfolio. Through systematized document review, we will develop a working understanding of participating schools’ theories of action, plans, short and long term progress indicators, and progress to date. This systematization will be critical to our ability to then group schools (e.g., by common and divergent characteristics), and target our inquiry accordingly. The value of a start-up phase at the outset of a 3-year evaluation is that we will gain an understanding of whether and how the program has worked thus far, in order to move toward an understanding of why it has worked or not. This phase allows us to derive maximum value from the rich documentation that has been produced thus far. This start-up phase will additionally include instrument preparation (interview protocols and survey) and first steps toward the development of sampling plans.

Note that an interview with the program officers, originally planned for February, will be conducted in January: Semi-structured telephone interviews with ESE staff will capture reflections and emergent lessons learned with respect to SRG implementation thus far (Research Question 1) and schools’ progress to date (Research Question 2).

PHASE I TASKS, TIMELINE, RESPONSIBLE PARTIESTask Timeline Details and responsible party/partiesProject start-up December -

Jan. 15UMDI will assemble the project team and orient team members to the SRG project and the evaluation plan. UMDI will establish administrative procedures necessary to project start-up, including internal communication, project file sharing, and fiscal procedures. Introductory letter by Jan. 15: ESE’s clear and visible support of the evaluation is critical to ensuring participants’ cooperation. ESE will prepare and distribute a letter of support to superintendents of SRG districts, introducing the evaluation and advising superintendents that they and their SRG principals will be contacted by UMDI. Note: UMDI will draft a letter for ESE signature, if that is needed to expedite the process. UMDI will confer with ESE by Jan. 5, 2012.Boston Public Schools approval to conduct research: UMDI will complete and submit initial

3 Note that the timing of ESE interviews differs from the timing proposed in the SRG Scope of Work. If possible, scheduling the ESE interview in January would be beneficial, allowing for the program officers’ knowledge and perspectives to inform the ensuing development of protocols and instruments.


application materials by Jan 9, and will continue the process as required. (Note that approval procedures require data collection instruments, which will not be ready in January. UMDI will proceed to the extent possible, and will solicit ESE assistance as needed. )

Document review January UMDI will inventory the materials that have been made available thus far, and will request that ESE provide any missing materials.ESE will provide the requested materials.

ESE interview January Individual telephone interviews with program officers: UMDI will contact the program officers to schedule interviews and will attempt to conduct these interviews by Jan. 18.

Interviews with ESE partners

January and continuing into February

UMDI will confer with ESE re the potential need to interview SchoolWorks personnel or other SRG partners (Research Q1 and Q2). UMDI will schedule these interviews for early February.

Instrument preparation January and continuing into February

UMDI will draft interview protocols needed for Phase II (district leaders interviews) and will submit to ESE by Jan. 20. ESE will provide feedback on district leaders interview protocols by Jan. 27. UMDI will make every effort to discuss revisions with ESE by telephone.AS needed, UMDI will draft interview protocols for ESE partners and submit to ESE by Jan 20.ESE will provide feedback on partners interview protocols by Jan. 27.UMDI will draft a survey instrument (principals’ survey) for ESE review by Jan. 25.

Sampling plans January and continuing into February

Based on emergent findings from the document review, and in collaboration with ESE, the sample of district leaders to be interviewed in Phase II will be identified. UMDI will confer with ESE via email and telephone in January about an emergent plan. School visits sample: The sample of schools to be visited in Phase II will be determined as above (district leaders’ interviews).

Phase II: Interviews and survey February - March


Semi-structured interviews with SRG partners? Schoolworks? Others? to capture reflections and emergent lessons learned with respect to SRG implementation thus far (Research Question 1) and schools’ progress to date (Research Question 2).

Semi-structured telephone interviews with a sub-set of district leaders (sampling to be determined based on groupings emerging from document review, and in collaboration with ESE) will capture reflections on the application process, monitoring process to date, funding structures, communication and reporting processes with ESE, and overall support received and/or needed from ESE (Research Question 1). Interviews will also elicit reflections on schools’ and districts’ progress and obstacles to date, and will explore emergent explanations of change (Research Question 2).

A brief online survey of participating SRG principals will solicit reflections on SRG implementation thus far, including the application process, monitoring process to date, funding structures, communication and reporting processes with ESE, and overall support received and/or needed from ESE (Research Question 1). The survey will also elicit principals’ reflections on schools’ and districts’ progress and obstacles to date, and will explore emergent explanations of change (Research Question 2). The survey will employ multiple choice, scaled and open-ended items.

PHASE II TASKS, TIMELINE, RESPONSIBLE PARTIESTask Timeline Details and responsible party/partiesInterviews with ESE’s partners

February As needed, UMDI will conduct telephone interviews with partners by Feb. 15.

Feedback on principals survey

By Feb. 8 ESE will provide feedback on the principals’ survey instrument by Feb. 8

Sampling plan and scheduling, district leaders interviews

February UMDI will coordinate finalization of the sampling plan with ESE by Feb. 3.ESE will provide UMDI contact info for those leaders to be interviewed, by Feb. 10. UMDI will contact district leaders during the week of Feb 13, to arrange scheduling of interviews for late February – early March.

Conduct of district leaders interviews

Feb- March Telephone interviews Feb. 27 – March 9

Logistics, principal survey

February ESE provides UMDI contact info for principals survey, by Feb. 15UMDI finalizes principals survey instrument, formatting (Survey Monkey), and logistics, by Feb. 22UMDI administers principals survey, Feb. 29 – March 14

Phase III: Site visits March – May

The purpose of the visits is to explore patterns emerging from the documents, interviews and principals’ survey, and to further develop explanations of what has worked and not worked, under various conditions. Sampling will be determined in collaboration with ESE: outside of Boston, UMDI will conduct 1-day visits to as many as 10 schools (up to each of two participating schools in five districts). In the Boston Public Schools, UMDI will conduct 1-day visits to as many as three schools. Visits will comprise individual and group interviews with relevant school and district staff.


Timing of the site visits is contingent on district and school staff’s availability. Factors such as the MCAS schedules will likely influence the timing of the visits.

PHASE III TASKS, TIMELINE, RESPONSIBLE PARTIESTask Timeline Details and responsible party/partiesSampling plan (school visits)

March 1 -9 UMDI will confer with ESE to identify the focal schools (school visits). Final sampling plan by March 9.

Scheduling school visits March 12-23 UMDI will contact principals (and district representatives, as appropriate) to schedule visits. As needed, UMDI will confer with ESE to identify interviewees at each site.

Preparation, school visits

March 12 – April 6

UMDI will submit interview protocols to ESE for review, by March 20. ESE will provide feedback on interview protocols by March 27.

Conduct of school visits

April 2 -6April 9 – 13Apr 23-May 11

UMDI will make every effort to conduct site visits at the convenience of school and district personnel. However, the study’s ambitious timeline warrants the earliest possible scheduling. UMDI will request ESE’s assistance, as needed and appropriate, if scheduling constraints arise.

F. Data management, analysis, and confidentiality measures

UMDI will retain sole ownership of study participants’ raw data. Online survey data will be managed by UMDI and will be downloaded to our secure server. Interviews will be audio recorded with participants’ consent and summarized or transcribed by members of the study team. Audio files, like all documents prepared under this study, will be stored on the server, using a numeric code to conceal identities. Audio files will be deleted at the conclusion of the study. Analysis will be conducted through multiple close readings of triangulated data, to yield themes, patterns and identification of convergent and divergent findings. Deliverables will be organized around the study’s primary research questions and will emphasize actionable feedback, to the extent possible.

Every effort will be taken to conceal the identities of study participants. Outside of Boston, findings from site visits will be integrated into the overall analysis, rather than being presented as stand-alone narratives. With respect to the Boston Public Schools, BPS principals’ survey data will be integrated into the overall analysis, rather than being presented as a sub-set of data. However, the Boston Public Schools brief (#5 below) will likely identify schools and speakers, given the small sample and the degree to which findings are anticipated to be context-dependent, reflective of the particular conditions specific to the BPS system.

Deliverables through July 31, 2012

The following deliverables will be prepared.


1. Research Plan By December 31

2. Management Briefing Memo By April 30

The memo will present in succinct and practical terms an overview of findings that begin to emerge from the document review, telephone interviews and principals’ survey. The memo will be organized around Themes and Questions to Consider. The memo will also present feedback to ESE on implementation support provided thus far, and any recommended mid-course corrections, based on data collection and analysis thus far.

3. Overview of Emergent Findings Memo By June 15

This memo will present an overview of the findings to be detailed in the July report.

4. Report of Preliminary Findings By July 31

The report will present preliminary findings from triangulated data collection. It will offer a big picture view of patterns and trends across SRG implementation contexts, document early evidence of change, and suggest modifications to SRG program planning and implementation. Note that findings from the site visits will be integrated into the overall analysis, rather than being presented as stand-alone narratives.

5. Boston Public Schools Brief By July 31

The report, tentatively titled Boston Public Schools Brief: School Redesign Grant, will present preliminary findings from triangulated data collection. It will offer a big picture view of patterns and trends across SRG schools in Boston, document early evidence of change, and suggest modifications to the SRG program as it is implemented in the Boston Public Schools.

G. Overview of anticipated FY 13 and FY 14 Questions and Data Collection

This document delineates research questions, data collection activities and deliverables through July 31, 2012. We would anticipate continued planning with ESE during the summer 2012, to identify next data collection and reporting activities.

Overall, we would anticipate that findings from this first round of data collection will guide data collection and analysis in FY 13. We anticipate that our growing explanations of schools’ turnaround progress will become increasingly targeted and nuanced. We foresee continued grouping of schools according to common characteristics, and more in-depth questioning about key components of their experience. Likely data collection strategies include surveys of targeted school staffs, repeated reflective interviews with ESE and key partners, and more targeted interviews with district and school leaders. School visits will likely continue, leading to more detailed analyses that focus on intermediate and longer term evidence of change.

The focus of FY 14 will likely be to capture longer term explanations of change for the early cohort schools, and to identify implications for implementers of turnaround programs, policy-makers, and a broad range of educator constituencies.

School Redesign Grant Appendix B

Appendix B: District Leaders Protocol and Interview Guide

ESE School Redesign GrantDistrict Leaders

Protocol and Informed ConsentInterview Guide

Spring 2012

Protocol

As part of efforts to support improvements in districts with Level 4 schools across the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) has provided School Redesign Implementation Grants (Fund Code 511) to 30 schools in nine districts. Begun in 2010, this program is designed to support accelerated turnaround at the most persistently lowest-achieving schools. At this time, ESE would like to step back, examine progress to date and articulate emergent lessons that could guide continued implementation of this effort. To that end, ESE has contracted with the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute (UMDI) Research and Evaluation group to design and conduct a School Redesign Grant program (SRG) evaluation. Specifically, the purposes of the evaluation are to:

provide ESE with the type of formative feedback that would support continuous improvement in school, district and ESE implementation of SRG

capture evidence of short and (eventually) long term changes, developing explanations of change (progress, success) that is likely associated with elements of SRG. The evaluation will ultimately yield explanations of factors that likely contribute to turnaround in underperforming schools.

Overview of the Study

The study is being carried out during the spring of 2012. It employs triangulated data collection methods, including document review, semi-structured interviews with district leaders, an online survey of SRG principals, and brief site visits to a sample of SRG schools.

Research Questions: The study is driven by two main research questions, presented below.


This component addresses ESE’s implementation of the program both thus far and in the future. Anticipated areas of focus include ESE’s process of school/district selection (e.g., application requirements such as demonstrating readiness on specific indicators), progress monitoring, the structuring of funding, and ESE’s implementation support.

Secondary questions in support of this primary question include: To what extent and in what ways have tools and procedures employed in the start-up phases proven useful, reliable; and in what ways are modifications


suggested? What lessons should inform ESE’s continued implementation of the SRG program? What, if any, implications for program managers and policy-makers are suggested?


This component develops ongoing explanations of turnaround strategies that have worked or not worked, under a range of conditions. It explores the relationships between various inputs (e.g., newly hired staff, district’s support role) and progress or success, over time, with respect to school wide improvement and student achievement. Secondary questions in support of this primary question include:

How have schools implemented their turnaround plans to date? What strategies have been supported by SRG funds to date? Which strategies and/or factors are associated with schools’ progress (implementation and progress toward benchmarks) and success, as defined by the program? Which factors have helped or hindered implementation, under what conditions? When and how are the various turnaround models associated with improvements? Which elements of each of the turnaround model(s) are associated with positive or negative change? To what extent and in what ways do school and district characteristics influence progress? What short or long term implications, if any, do the study’s findings suggest for ESE, school and district leaders, policy-makers? Research Products: UMDI will submit an analytical memo to ESE in April, presenting a tentative summary of emergent findings to date. ESE will submit two separate research reports to ESE in July: a technical report specific to the Boston Public Schools, and a synthesis report that presents cross-cutting findings from the set of all SRG schools across the Commonwealth.

Informed Consent: Interviews with District Leaders

Data management, data storage and confidentiality: Leaders from each of the nine districts will participate in telephone interviews of approximately one hour in duration, designed to capture the leaders’ perspectives on each of the research questions. For accuracy, the interviews will be audio-recorded, with interviewees’ verbal permission. Audio files will be stored on UMDI’s secure server, assigned a code number, and made available only to members of the research team, for transcription or summarization. Audio files and transcripts/summaries will not be made available to any party. The research team will present findings in the aggregate, in order to protect the identity of individual speakers. We will make every effort to remove identifying marks in our written reports and ongoing communications with ESE.

Risks and benefits of participating in the research: There are no significant risks associated with participating in this study; however, district leaders may anticipate that some time commitment is involved. We are aware of the many demands on leaders’ time, and will make every effort to schedule interviews at the most convenient times, and will otherwise do everything we can to reduce the burden of participation. The potential benefits of participating in the study include the opportunity to inform planning efforts and otherwise contribute to ESE’s growing knowledge base about how best to support all students’ success and improvements in ESE’s support for SRG schools in the Commonwealth.

Contact: For any questions related to your participation and any aspect of the School Redesign Grant evaluation, please contact Greta Shultz at UMDI ([email protected]/413.587.2406), or Erica Champagne at ESE ([email protected]/781.338.3521).

mailto:[email protected]/781.338.3521


Interview Guide

Grounded in the research purposes and primary questions described above, the interview will address the following questions:

Overview of SRG in your district

Please help us to understand how SRG has been implemented in your district. We have read your district and schools’ redesign plans, Monitoring Site Visit reports, re-application materials (if applicable) and other background documents. In this interview, we will explore your thoughts about whether and how SRG funds and other inputs have either spurred new efforts, or strengthened existing strategies. We will also explore your perspectives on constraints and supports to the district’s capacity to support the SRG schools.

1. Planning stages

Reflecting back to the initial stages of the SRG opportunity, let’s talk briefly about the process your district undertook to respond to the departments RFP.

a. Who was involved in the redesign process from the district?b. How were the schools involved in the planning process? Do you have any specific examples to share?c. What did your proposal writing process look like and how were individuals who would actually

implement the SRG initiative involved? [Probe if necessary for who prepared in addition to implementers or whomever they mention.] How well did this process work? What would you do differently next time?

d. How did the SRG application requirements help or hinder the process of planning the redesign of the schools? [Probe for feedback on the application materials, selection of model, district and school interviews, scoring mechanisms/rubrics, technical assistance provided to the district, sufficient time to integrate redesign components, etc.]

2. Feedback on ESE’s management of SRG

a. Please tell us about the degree to which ESE has contributed to or constrained your redesign efforts. In particular, please comment on webinars or other technical support mechanisms you are familiar with, as well as routine monitoring and communication with respect to the grant. Suggestions?

b. Specifically, ESE has designated liaisons to the Commissioner’s Districts. Who is your liaison? In what ways has this resource been most helpful in supporting your district’s implementation of SRG funds, if at all? Do you have any thoughts or opinions on the role of the liaison and in particular if this resource could be enhanced in any way?

3. Links between turnaround models, implementation, and student success

3.1 Turnaround Models

a. In what way(s) do the models being used in your district align with the needs of each school community [Prompt to think/talk about the essential conditions?]

b. What is the most critical role that the district needs to play within each of these models? [Explore]c. Are there areas of school life that are not accounted for in the redesign models? [Prompts? Are the

turnaround models comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive? Integrated or disjointed? Include (and ideally integrate) both academic and non-academic supports?]

d. What are the particular challenges of each model? Ho w might the models be improved?e. In your view, what are the elements of each model that are arguably associated with positive change in

schools, and for students?


3.2 The Issue of Standardization and/or Customization of Support to Schools

a. [Build on conversation to this point; and look at data, as appropriate, if varying school success across the district] What district forms of support are standardized across all SRG schools in your district? How might the district further standardize its systems of support to improve consistency and equity across schools? Are there ways ESE might be able to help with this effort?

b. In what ways has the district tailored support to meet the unique needs of different schools (e.g., differences in student populations, learning and social support needs, community/family dynamics, etc.)? How might this effort be enhanced or improved? Are there ways ESE might be able to help with this effort?

3.3 Leadership

a. In what ways has the district supported effective leadership at the SRG school(s) (e.g., coordination of initiatives; clarity about expectations, roles, and responsibilities; communication; opportunities for leaders to collaborate across schools/at the district level and share concerns/ideas; the difficult balance between giving school leaders autonomy and providing enough oversight to ensure fidelity and adequate, equitable support within and across schools; partnership development, and sustainability)?

b. How does the district assess the effectiveness of leadership at SRG schools? [Probe individual and distributed/distributive leadership, teams…]

c. How could the district better support effective leadership, and how might ESE help with this effort?

3.4 Student Progress/Performance Measures

a. Do you use the MAGs as indicators of student progress and change? [If not, explore…] How realistic are they? Do they provide an accurate assessment of progress? [As needed, explore relationship to MCAS] Do they help you focus your efforts in a particular area/direction? Should goals be more ambitious? Less? [Explore]

b. [Tailor this set of question to the systems in place in the district] Like many reform efforts, SRG prioritizes the ongoing use of data to assess student progress and inform instruction. What is your perspective on the ways in which and degree to which instructional leaders at your schools are i) implementing data assessment systems and ii) using resulting data to inform instruction? How helpful do you think SRG data collection and analysis systems such as the ANet program have been in reaching school improvement goals?

c. How do you at the district level support the SRG schools in managing data and assessment? [Building on earlier conversation, explore standardization and customization] How could this support be enhanced or improved, and could ESE help with these efforts?

3.5 Growth and Constraint

a. [Moving toward summing up…] What are the two or three most effective strategies you have used to support your school(s) in their turnaround efforts?

b. Describe some areas in which progress is slow or has not yet been realized (use 11 conditions as prompts, available data…).

c. What have been the constraints hindering the district’s capacity to support schools in these challenge areas? [Examples: 1) Timing of staff changes and the relationship of these changes to district and/or union policies and budget limitations have delayed hiring and dismissal processes and acted as a barrier to


the forward movement of certain SRG initiatives (e.g., cultural shifts in face of teacher morale/tension around staffing, instructional improvements, etc.). 2) operational challenges (e.g., issues w/ busing, technology/data, facilities, curricular resources]

d. How is the district working to address these issues, and how might ESE help with these efforts?e. One major goal of SRG efforts is to address achievement gaps and inequities in student achievement

among different sub-populations. Do you feel that the district has the necessary resources, expertise, etc. to provide the support necessary for the required changes in student achievement? [Explore kinds of resources for English Language Learners (focus here if time is limited), special need students (including students w/ undiagnosed learning disabilities), etc. and any variations among resources for SRG schools. ] How might district support be enhanced or improved, and are there ways ESE might be able to help?

f. [If appropriate] How familiar are you with MTSS? What has your experience been with MTSS (training, implementation efforts)? Do you have any thoughts about moving forward with MTSS (e.g., requests for further support)?

4. Sustainability

a. One of ESE’s concerns is sustainability of SRG efforts beyond the grant. In what ways has ESE encouraged and/or supported your long-term planning around sustainability? In what ways have the SRG materials, processes or procedures supported or inhibited your long-term planning? [Explore MSV, re-application…]

b. What will you need and what do you think will be most helpful to continue efforts beyond the grant period? Are there ways in which ESE can help?

5. Lessons learned, implications

a. Do you have any overarching thoughts about ESE’s emergent focus on the district’s role in schools’ performance? In a nutshell, what is the district’s response to the call for increased accountability at the district level?

b. Reflecting on the district’s experience with SRG to date, are there things you at the district level would do differently? Things that ESE should do differently?

c. Is there anything we haven’t asked about that you would like to share with us?

School Redesign Grant Appendix C

Appendix C: Survey Instrument

School Redesign Grants

UMDI Evaluation

Principals’ Survey

Introduction

This survey is being administered by the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute (UMDI), which has been contracted by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) to conduct a program evaluation the School Redesign Grants (Fund Codes 511 and 767). In your district, this grant-funded school redesign initiative may be referred to as “SRG,” or “School Improvement Grant (SIG),” or “School Turnaround Grant (STG).” In this survey, for simplicity, we will use “SRG” to mean the ESE-funded initiative to support school redesign plans.

Please note that UMDI is not evaluating you or your school; we are looking at the SRG program as a whole. Survey results from SRG principals across the Commonwealth will be aggregated in all reports and you will not be linked to any results. If any of the open-ended comments are used in the report, all identifying information (such as names of schools and individuals, for example) will be deleted. By completing the survey, you consent to let UMDI use your responses and comments anonymously in UMDI’s SRG evaluation reports.

We are interested in your assessment of the effectiveness and usefulness of some components of the redesign processes and activities, and in your perspective on aspects of the redesign efforts at your school.

The survey consists of 7 sections, and includes both multiple-choice questions and short, open-ended responses. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Please read the questions carefully and review all of the response choices before making your selections.

Background Information

1. How long have you been an educator? o 1 – 6 monthso 7 months – 11 monthso 1 – 2 yearso 3 –4 years

5 –6 yearso 7 – 8 yearso 9 –10 yearso More than 10 years

2. How long have you been a school principal (at this school and elsewhere)?o 1–6 monthso 7 months – 11 months



o 1 – 2 yearso 3 – 4 yearso 5 – 6 yearso 7 – 8 yearso 9 –10 yearso More than 10 years

3. How long have you been the principal at your current school? o 1 – 6 monthso 7 months - 11 months o 1 – 2 yearso 3-4 yearso 5-6 yearso 7-8 yearso 9-10 yearso More than 10 years

4. How long have you worked in your current school district? o 1 – 6 monthso 7 months - 11 months o 1 – 2 yearso 3-4 yearso 5-6 yearso 7-8 yearso 9-10 yearso More than 10 years

II. Perspectives on your Role in the Redesign Mission

In public discussions of school turnaround efforts, there are numerous ideas about the role of the principal, as well as concern for the well-being of individuals who assume this challenging role. In this section we are interested in your perspectives, based on your experiences thus far as a redesign principal.

5. Thinking about the resources available to you, and the three-year timeframe of the SRG grant, how realistic are the following expectations of your leadership?

RealisticSomewhat realistic

Unrealistic

Recruiting and hiring staff that are competent and committedArticulating a clear vision of the school and its mission Fostering and sustaining teachers’ commitment to the



redesign planEvaluating teachers’ skills and knowledge Implementing effective professional development structures for staffImplementing effective systems of data collection and analysisIncreasing student achievement so that the school meets its academic goalsIncreasing positive student behaviors Having a working knowledge of the status of each classroomImproving communication with students’ familiesImproving students’ social and emotional healthBuilding strong ties with community partnersCreating a school community that is focused on and engaged in learning

6. Thinking about the expectations that you described as unrealistic, what resources and supports would help make them more realistic? [open-ended]

For a multitude of reasons, but especially the pressure to make rapid changes in student achievement, “burnout” has been identified as a potential risk for principals in turnaround schools.

7. To what degree do you recognize the potential for, or are you already experiencing, signs of burnout as the leader of a redesign school?

o To a great extento To some extento Not at allo Too soon to tell

8. What measures are in place to protect you from burnout?

o Ongoing communications with ESE (“think partner,” troubleshooting)o Collegial networks (principals’ networks, turnaround networks, etc.)o Professional associationso Incentives and rewards for successful performance (stipends, contractual conditions)o Distributed leadership: shared responsibility across school teamso Ongoing communications with the districto No mechanisms in place o Other (please specify) _________________________

9. What other kinds of support or changes in your working conditions, if any, could be provided by either the district or ESE to support your long-term tenure and encourage you to remain as principal at your school for the long run? [open-ended]



Now we are going to ask you to think about the support you receive from your district as a redesign principal.

10. How does the district support you in your role as a redesign principal?

o Formal assessment of my job performance (involving use of a rubric or protocol, scheduled assessments/observations, formalized feedback)

o Formal coaching and/or mentoring to support my leadership of the school (e.g., from an individual, advisory team, or outside consultant)

o Informal assessment and/or mentoring provided by a district leadero Open-door policies at the district that allow me to share both challenges and successes with district staff

or leaderso District staff or leaders from whom I can solicit support or feedbacko Facilitating and coordinating external partnerships in the redesign effortso Monitoring external partnerships o Facilitating professional networks (principal network, urban district network, turnaround network)o Other (please specify) _________________________

11. Which one, if any, of the district-provided supports do you believe has contributed most to your success as a redesign principal? Please provide a short explanation of your answer. [open-ended]

12. How could the district improve the support it provides to you as a redesign principal? Keep in mind that your comments will be anonymous and aggregated with all other responses in our report. [open-ended]

13. How accessible are the district leaders/staff who oversee the redesign efforts?

o Always accessibleo Usually accessibleo Sometimes accessibleo Rarely accessible

14. How much autonomy do you have from the district?

o Nearly complete autonomy: I make most decisions independently of the district. o Some autonomy: I can make some decisions without them, but not others. o Little autonomy: I make very few decisions without the district.



15. Continuing to think about autonomy, for each of the areas listed below, indicate whether you could benefit from increased or decreased district involvement. You can also indicate that no change is needed, or it is too soon to tell.

Increased involvement

Decreased involvement

No change in involvement

needed

Too soon to tell

Budgets and expendituresCurriculumTiered instruction practices

Staffing – personnel and schedulesStudent behavior managementFamily outreach and relations Student data management and analysisCommunity partnershipsThe principal’s (your) professional developmentDevelopment of team leadershipStaff professional developmentSustainability planning

16. In your view, how, if at all, does autonomy from the district make a difference, in terms of your ability to lead the school toward its redesign goals? [open-ended]

17. Are there any other factors that we should be aware of that support or constrain you in your role as a redesign principal? [open-ended]

Thank you for your participation in the survey thus far. The remaining sections ask for your thoughts on District Support for your School, Turnaround Strategies, Resources, and ESE’s implementation of the program.

III. District Support for your School

ESE is asking districts to play an active role in the turnaround or transformation of SRG schools, including accepting responsibility for schools’ progress. In this section, we ask first about the frequency of district-provided supports, and second about the usefulness of district-provided supports.

18. Do the following happen with enough frequency to further continual progress at your school?

More than enough

Enough Not enough

Not at all

Too soon to tell

Meetings with district staff to review your school’s performance



Meetings with district staff to discuss your school’s needs

District monitoring of your school’s progress and results through collection and analyses of data (such as student assessments, teacher attendance rates, and standardized test scores)

Learning walks

19. Please comment on your responses to the last question. Could changes in the frequency of any of the supports listed be beneficial in a particular way? [open-ended]

20. To what extent was the district’s support in developing your school’s SRG renewal application(s) useful? o To a great extento To some extento Not at allo District did not provide support in developing our school’s SRG renewal application(s)

21. How could the district’s support in developing SRG renewal applications be improved? [open-ended]

22. To what extent was the district’s support in responding to SchoolWorks MSV reports useful?o To a great extento To some extento Not at allo District did not provide support in responding to SchoolWorks MSV reports

23. How could the district’s support in responding to SchoolWorks MSV reports be improved? [open-ended]

For the questions below, select the responses that most closely match your experience of the usefulness of each activity or process addressed.

24. Overall, how useful are meetings with district staff (e.g., to review your school’s performance, to discuss your school’s needs)?

o Very usefulo Useful o Somewhat usefulo Not useful



o Too soon to tello Not occurring at my school

25. From the list below, which are the most useful aspects of the district meetings? (Choose all that apply.)o District understands and articulates our school’s needso District contributes expertise in some areaso Keeps our focus on our redesign goalso District shares responsibility for the work that needs to get done

o Other (please specify) _________________________

26. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]

27. What limitations make the district meetings less than effective? (Choose all that apply.)o District lacks expertise in some areaso Incomplete understanding of our school’s needso Low district capacity (lack of staff, limited time)o Ineffective communicationo Other (please specify) _________________________


29. How useful is district monitoring (excluding ESE’s SchoolWorks Site visits and Office of District and School Turnaround Accountability Reviews) of your school’s progress and results through collection and analyses of data (such as student assessments, teacher attendance rates, and standardized test scores)?

o Very usefulo Usefulo Somewhat usefulo Not useful o Too soon to tello Not occurring at my school

30. From the list below, which are the most useful aspects of the district’s monitoring of your school’s progress? (Choose all that apply.)

o District understands and articulates our school’s needso District contributes expertise in specific areaso Keeps our focus on our redesign goalso District shares responsibility for the work that needs to get done



o Other (please specify) _________________________


32. Still thinking about monitoring, what limitations make the district less than effective? (Choose all that apply.)

o District lacks expertise in some areaso Incomplete understanding of our school’s needso Low district capacity (lack of staff, limited time)o Ineffective communicationo Other (please specify) _________________________


34. How useful is the district’s provision of data management services (e.g., staffing, collection of data, analysis, reporting, etc.)?

o Very usefulo Usefulo Somewhat usefulo Not useful o Too soon to tello Not occurring at my school

35. From the list below, which were the most useful aspects of the district’s provision of data management services? (Choose all that apply.)

o District understands and articulates our school’s needso District contributes expertise in specific areaso Keeps our focus on our redesign goalso District shares responsibility for the work that needs to get doneo Other (please specify) _________________________


37. Still thinking about data management services, what limitations make the district less than effective? o District lacks expertise in some areas



o Incomplete understanding of our school’s needso Low district capacity (lack of staff, limited time)o Ineffective communicationo Other (please specify) _________________________


39. How useful is the evidence from the district’s learning walks? o Very usefulo Usefulo Somewhat usefulo Not useful o Too soon to tello It is not occurring at my school

40. From the list below, which were the most useful aspects of the district’s learning walks? (Choose all that apply.)



42. Still thinking about learning walks, what limitations make the district less than effective? o District lacks expertise in some areaso Incomplete understanding of our school’s needso Low district capacity (lack of staff, limited time)o Ineffective communicationo Other (please specify) _________________________


44. What happens to the information generated through the learning walks? (Choose all that apply.)o The district develops PD to support areas of weakness identified in the learning walks.o Feedback from the learning walks is provided to the teachers who were observed.o Results of the learning walks are discussed in professional learning communities at the school School-

based instructional specialists use the results to inform their work with staff and/or students.



o School-based PD is identified to support areas of weakness identified in the learning walks.o Other (please specify) _________________________

45. How useful is the district’s assistance with sustainability planning? o Very usefulo Usefulo Somewhat usefulo Not useful o Too soon to tello It is not occurring at my school

46. From the list below, which were the most useful aspects of the district’s assistance with sustainability planning? (Choose all that apply.)



48. Still thinking about sustainability planning, what limitations make the district less than effective? o District lacks expertise in some areaso Incomplete understanding of our school’s needso Low district capacity (lack of staff, limited time)o Ineffective communicationo Other (please specify) _________________________


50. Is there anything else you would like us to know regarding the support your district provides your school in its redesign efforts? Are there any specific positive experiences or challenges you can share?

IV. Turnaround Strategies

In this section, we are interested in your opinion of the effectiveness of specific turnaround strategies in bringing your school closer to its redesign goals. In other words, are the strategies effective change-makers at your school?

A. Leadership Structures and Processes



51. How effective was the strategy of replacing school leaders in furthering your school’s redesign efforts (e.g., new principal, new assistant principals, deans, coordinators who were hired as part of the redesign plan)?

o Very effectiveo Effectiveo Somewhat effectiveo Not at all effective o Too soon to tell o Not yet occurring at my school

52. What makes the replacement of leadership an effective strategy in your school? How is it less than effective?

53. How effective was the process of fostering understanding of and commitment to your school’s redesign mission and goals?

o Very effectiveo Effective o Somewhat effective o Not at all effectiveo Too soon to tello Not yet occurring at my school

54. What makes the process of fostering understanding and commitment an effective strategy in your school? How is it a less than effective strategy? [open-ended]

55. How effective was the creation of a new leadership structure (e.g., teams, committees, roles and responsibilities that were defined and organized as part of the redesign plan)?


56. In what ways is the new leadership structure effective in bringing change? How is it less than effective? [open-ended]

57. At your school, which of the teams has most contributed to your school’s progress toward redesign goals? In what ways? [open-ended]



B. Effective Instruction Resources and Processes

We’ll start by asking a few questions about staffing at your school, and the redesign plan’s option to replace or rehire staff (as applicable).

58. What percentage of staff turnover did your school experience in the first year of school redesign?o 0 – 25% o 26 -50%o 51-80%o More than 80% o Don’t know

59. To what extent did the staff turnover during the first year of the grant positively impact the effectiveness of your school’s redesign work?

o To a great extento To some extento Not at allo Don’t know


Given your experience as an SRG principal thus far, how effective have the following strategies been in promoting change at your school?

61. Use of school-based instructional coaches (e.g., ELA, mathematics):


62. What makes the use of school-based instructional coaches effective at your school? Have there been challenges with this strategy? [open-ended]

63. Use of district-based instructional coaches (e.g., ELA, mathematics):

o Very effective



o Effective o Somewhat effective o Not at all effectiveo Too soon to tello Not yet occurring at my school

64. What makes this strategy effective? What are the challenges and positive aspects of this strategy for change? [open-ended]

Still thinking about strategies, how effective have the following been in promoting change at your school?

65. Use of school-based instructional and/or curriculum specialists (ELL, special education, reading specialists)


66. What makes this strategy effective at your school? Are there ways that it is less than effective? [open-ended]

67. Use of district-based instructional and/or curriculum specialists (ELL, special education, reading specialists):


68. What makes the use of district-based instructional specialists effective at your school? Have there been challenges with this strategy? [open-ended]

Still thinking about strategies, how effective have the following been in promoting change at your school?

69. Use of formal structures for teacher collaboration (e.g., common planning time, grade level meetings, professional learning communities):

o Very effective



o Effective o Somewhat effective o Not at all effectiveo Too soon to tello Not yet occurring at my school

70. How has the use of formal structures for teacher collaboration been effective? What have been some of the challenges in using this strategy?

71. Restructuring the school day (e.g., for longer blocks, teacher collaboration, team meetings, PD)?


72. What makes restructuring the school day an effective strategy? What are the challenges of using this strategy? [open-ended]

73. Tiered Instruction: Use of benchmark, formative, and summative assessments to place students and continually inform instruction.

o Very effectiveo Effective o Somewhat effective o Not at all effectiveo Too soon to tello Not occurring at my school

74. What makes this strategy effective? How has it been less than effective? [open-ended]

75. Thinking about tiered instruction, what, if any, are the primary challenges you face in terms of consistent implementation of tiered instruction methods? (Choose all that apply.)

o Inexperienced teacherso Student behaviorso No system for managing data o No system for using assessment datao Additional PD is needed so that teachers understand tiered instruction o Additional PD is needed so that teachers can use data to inform instruction



o Many teachers lack strong behavior management skillso A cohesive, well-articulated instructional plan that is relevant to all teacherso Meeting the needs of English Language Learnerso Meeting the needs of the special education populationo Other (please specify) _________________________

76. What needs to be changed so that tiered instruction addresses the challenges you identified above? [open-ended]

77. Which extended time option(s) are being employed at your school? (Choose all that apply.) o Restructured school dayo Additional minutes to school dayo Additional time on weekendso Additional time during vacation weekso Additional time in summero Other (please describe) _________________________

78. To what extent has extended time been associated with improved student growth? o To a great extento To some extento Not at allo Too soon to tello Don’t know


80. To what extent has extended time created opportunities for staff planning and collaboration? o To a great extento To some extento Not at allo Don’t know


C. Strategies to Address Students’ Social, Emotional, and Health Needs

82. Given your experience as an SRG principal thus far, how effective have the following strategies been in promoting change at your school?

How effective have the following Very Effective Somewhat Not at all Too soon Not



strategies been in promoting change at your school? effective effective effective to tell occurring

Develop explicit safety expectations for students.Develop explicit behavior expectations for students.Develop explicit safety expectations for staff.Develop explicit behavior expectations for staff.Implement a school-wide system of support for students (such as social services, student support teams, counseling, nutrition, dental services, etc.). Form relationships between community partners and the school.Coordinate delivery of community services by community partners. Implement systems/processes that allow the school to work with families to address students’ social, emotional, and health needs. Share information about student progress with families. Share student progress information with appropriate community partners.

83. Please describe any other strategies that have been effective in promoting change in the areas of students’ social, emotional and health needs. [open-ended]

84. Which one of the strategies to support students’ social, emotional, and health needs has been most strongly associated with progress toward your school’s redesign goals? [open-ended]

85. Thinking about your responses above, what challenges have you faced and what supports would your school need to better address students’ social, emotional, and health needs? [open-ended]

D. School Redesign Planning and Evaluation Tools

86. Given your experience as an SRG principal thus far, how useful have the following tools been in promoting change at your school?



Very useful


Not useful

Too soon to tell

Not Occurring

SchoolWorks site monitoring visitsRedesign applicationRedesign renewal application Measurable annual goals (MAGS)

87. Please share any additional comments about these tools. For example, how were they useful to you and what kinds of challenges did they pose? [open-ended]

E. External Partnerships

88. How, if at all, have partnerships supported your school’s progress toward redesign goals? How could the effectiveness of the partnerships be enhanced? (Please enter “n/a” if not applicable.) [open-ended]

89. What are the barriers to effective partnerships in redesign efforts? o Lack of understanding among partners of the redesign goalso Competing agendaso Challenges to coordinating partners’ effortso We have not experienced any barriers.o Other (please specify) _________________________

V. Resources

In the following section, we ask about the resources available to your school.

90. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.

Strongly agree

Agree Neither agree nor disagree


Don’t know

The school has sufficient funding to carry out the redesign plan and achieve its goals.



The school has sufficient human resources to carry out the redesign plan and achieve its goals.

91. Identify one or two specific needs that could be alleviated with additional funding or human resources, and if alleviated, would help meet the redesign goals. [open-ended]

92. Did your school encounter any barriers to using the SRG funds? (These could result from a number of sources, such as: vendor contract issues, district restrictions, issues with teacher stipends.) o Yeso No

93. You indicated there were barriers to using SRG funds. Please describe the barriers. [open-ended]

VI. Your feedback to ESE: Implementation and Oversight of the S R G (Fund Codes 511 and 767)

ESE is interested in hearing from you regarding their management of the SRG program to date. Thinking about their direct involvement in the implementation of your school’s redesign plan, indicate how useful ESE’s support is in terms of your school’s progress toward change.

94. How useful is ESE’s support in terms of your school’s progress toward change?

Very useful


Not useful

Too soon to

tell

Not Occurring

Support with union negotiations necessary for implementation of the redesign plan.

Technical assistance and PD.

District liaison’s participation in walkthroughs or learning walks.

District liaison’s participation in MSV “report outs.”Feedback on progress in response to MSVs



Support with renewal applicationsSupport regarding student performance data that helps drive improvement effortsSupport for sustainability planning: strategies to remain on track after the funding ends.Facilitation of community partnerships, such as social service providers.

95. Of the ESE-provided technical support and webinars, which was most helpful to you? Which was least helpful? [open-ended]

96. Is there something else ESE could do, or provide, that would support you as the principal of an SRG school? [open-ended]

The two questions below conclude the survey. Thank you!

VII. Concluding Remarks

97. Please indicate your degree of agreement with the following statements.

Strongly agree

Agree Neither agree nor

disagree


The three-year time limit helps the school to focus on positive change. Three years is a reasonable amount of time to achieve the redesign goals.


99. In your experience to date, which specific SRG efforts are the best investment of grant funds? [open-ended]

100. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experience as the principal of a redesign school, or about the redesign grant program? [open-ended]


School Redesign Grant Appendix D

Appendix D: Open-ended Responses

Open-ended Responses from The Principals’ Survey (2012)

Q6. Thinking about the expectations that you described as unrealistic, what resources and supports would help to make them more realistic?Additional time and funds

Hiring and firing autonomy, which even though the District claims we have, we do not

Implementing the new evaluation system this year was completely unrealistic. The problem with the question as stated is that if I think of each indicator separately it is realistic. However, it's the combination of all of them in THREE YEARS along with the media influence that makes it challenging. The goals would be more attainable if we worked together as a cohort. Also, there's a level of competitiveness that is unhealthy. What would have made this a much more successful venture is if we had slowed down and had a cohesive thought-out plan before beginning with the district offering a cohesive plan that was integrated into the individual school plans.I don't think that any of the measures above are unrealistic, however, increased supports would make it much more possible that we can put in place the socio-emotional and family supports that our students so desperately need. I would love to have the resources, eventually, to create a really robust set of support systems for our students and families in this area.Many of efforts were not started until this year, Year 2. The new evaluation system has just been implemented inSocial emotional issues related to poverty are a huge issue and grow both in number and intensity. We need more targeted support and interventions in our schools for these if we are to overcome them.Student and family emotional health needs are extreme, and it is an ongoing challenge to support them. This cannot be resolved by the school, only managed and supported.we can’t improve students social/emotional in such a short time. our students are increasingly "needier" families are fragile. Teacher burn-out is an issue in 2-3 yrs of turnaround. the work is hard and teacher start losing steamWhile it is possible to put professional development structures in place, adult learning takes place over an extended period of time. Building a truly expert and stable faculty might take longer than this time frame.

Q8. What measures are in place to protect you from burnout? (Choose all that apply.)Other (please specify)A loving family and a fabulous staff, including a coach … and an excellent ass. principal. There is also a good team of people in the Office of Accountability who are helpful. The problem there, though, is that they often add to our work.Although many things are put in place the job is challenging.

My staff.

Strong leadership such as AP and content coaches.

This is an area of great concern for me and my family. The hours are many, and the current leadership capacity in the school is weak at best.


Q10. What other kinds of support or changes in your working conditions, if any, could be provided by either the district or ESE to support your long-term tenure and encourage you to remain as principal at your school for the long run?at this point other than doing it for the children and community i'm not sure what could be put in place to support a redesign principal to stay long term, especially after the external supports run out.certainty of long time job security

Constant communication (with district and ESE) and time to show results are needed along with support along the way, especially when it comes to implementing changes (new educator evaluation, identifying data points for MAGS, etc.).Developing more building-level leadership capacity; and Expanding the pool of administers who can evaluate staff... today only the principal can evaluate faculty and staff (84 faculty and 40 staff).Elimination of extended day Hiring and firing autonomy

I believe that we only make our student achievement goals if a principal's primary goal and majority of time is spent doing real instructional work and support. The current "managerial" duties are overwhelming and must be attended to. Perhaps considering a SAM like model or some administrative role that is skilled and has an attractive salary to remove duties from the principal.I think the assumption that a school can be "turned around" in one year is a hard assumption. My school is making some slow but steady progress, yet we have been publicly branded a failure already in the newspaper and in a state report. Pressure is good to help us stay focused, but this is not an accurate view of how organizations change and improve.Incentives and rewards for successful performance. Stipends for extra time. Liason position should be a more active role (this would eliviate some of the pressure for Principal to constantly be linking the work with the level 4 plan.....compliance pieces).Level 4 principals have all the demands of non-level 4 plus the additional conditions due to our status. There have been no actual flexibilities regarding management of budget and we must still conform to the district formula for staffing allocation. We cannot make true staffing decisions unless we are released from this formula. It adds a great deal to the stress.more help, less paper work.

Ongoing training and supports with the new structures such as the new teacher evaluation system

Professional development to keep you motivated and positive recognition from district and state for making progress.Real collaborative networks that are not driven by top down mandates, issues and ideas. Authentic opportunities to share voice and best practices within the network and districtStop adding more responsibility on Level 4 schools. It is already a great deal of work to make significant change in a school to add on the Educator Evaluation to be implemented first, New Mass Frameworks, and the many reports, visits, and conference calls adds to the stress and responsibilities that these schools already have on their plates.The biggest sense of my burnout comes from not having clear guidance from the DESE and from my home district about the role of my school within the greatest context. Trying to work with the DESE, the district, as well as the school's board of trustees to determine where we have autonomies and where we don't takes up a significant amount of time and energy. I would rather see clear guidance on these items given from the DESE so that I can focus solely on running my school, with the autonomies promised by our MOU and the charter statute, to produce significant gains with my students and teachers. The back and forth struggle over who is the ultimate decision maker and how money flows to the school is overwhelming and time consuming.


The district must become more supportive of turnaround leaders. Currently there is a level of incoherence, where the team in place to support turnaround work is planning their support in isolation of the turnaround school teams. This must be aligned. Separate from the turnaround leadership team, there are many, many folks supportive of the work. This must, however, become a district-wide focus and not the priority of individuals.The pressure to increase MCAS scores, even though the MAG goals are reasonable, is intense. The operations end of [our district] is a source of frustration. We have had an incredibly hard time finding long-term subs and that is a huge problem for a number of reasons. The report that ESE published only added to the pressure. It ranked schools using percent proficient even though that's not the only MAG and it made it seem like schools in the "bottom ten" had principals that did nothing.We need a mechanism to hold parents more accountable for their role in educating their children. That includes getting their children to school on time, making sure they are well rested, supervising them when they do their homework, and monitoring television watching and video games..We need ongoing support in the form of direction, coaching and motivation from the district

Q 11. How does the district support you in your role as a redesign principal? (Choose all that apply.)Other (please specify)Limited SupportOne of the external partnerships has been the District Management Council which is working with the entire district, but I feel it's important to mention because their support and training has been very beneficial to our Level 4 school.The leaders that as supposed to be my support have never turned around a school themselves so I question their selection for the position. No one from central office has visited my school for more than 10 minutes other than [one individual].

Q12. Which one, if any, of the district-provided supports do you believe has contributed most to your success as a redesign principal? Please provide a short explanation of your answer.Assistance in negotiating the hiring process

district meeting supportive boss

External coaching. It keeps me "sane" Mtg with my coach affirms my decision-making

flexibility to implement the school redesign plan as written -- even when the plan is not in-synch with district plans/priorities.I am able to reach out to district to ask questions or guidance. It is not always given due to other priorities or lack of specific knowledge.I have enjoyed the support of the Accountability Team being able to support us with data analysis. I also enjoyed the opportunities to talk about the emotional elements of the work with my immediate supervisor.I think [our] quarterly review process in which turnaround principals present their goals and progress to each other has been a great process.None.

Limited district support, Level 4 schools are treated the same with regards to monitoring and coaching.

Managing our external partners to insure that they're supporting the mission and turnaround plan for the school. making sure that the agenda of student achievement is first and foremost, not their own agenda.


My district administration has been available whenever I have needed anything. There is not any one piece that has contributed more than another. They have been there for me whenever I have needed them and they have come to my Redesign Team meetings all year.Of the most value are the network meetings with level 4 prinipals only as they enable us to share, discuss and problem solve around the realities of our schools.On the job training and sessions to help explain new aspects of the work.

Professional development and networking. Principal and headmasters have had sessions on data, time auditing, evaluation, etc.Professional networks-The opportunity to talk to fellow turnaround leaders and learn from them

Providing me with the autonomy to make changes.

Support from superintendent helps significantly.

The Assistant Superintendent has provided me a great amount of support and guidance. She has accompanied me on school walkthrough's, attended our Leadership Team meetings, looked at data with me, and is available whenever I have questions/concerns.The turnaround network has contributed the most for the following reasons: It is where we discuss some of our redesign goals, have quarterly meetings to discuss successes and challenges, and also have professional development on new initiatives.

Q13. How could the district improve the support it provides to you as a redesign principal? Keep in mind that your comments will be anonymous and aggregated with all other responses in our report.As I have mentioned previously the Liason position should be more of a "hands on" position. I would also like to attend NISL. I was asked to attend the Level 4 Turnaround Principal training this summer, however the it is too much of a time comittment for me (the month of July) when I need to be in the building, making instructional decisions, analyzing data, and meeting with my Leadership team. I would love to attend this PD if it wasn't everyday for 3-4 weeks.Coaching!!!

Continue to support with open communication and instructional feedback.

Differentiate our expectations from non level 4 schools. Meeting regulary with the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent to really hear what is going on. Some celebration of progress made other than just MCAS. And perhaps talking to our teachers who are so devoted to the cause but never hear one word of support from Central Office. Downtown needs to get out of the office and be in the schools just as we must get out of the office and be in classrooms. I'm not trying to place blame but they can't continue to evaluate us by scores. They need to see the entire picture.Diminish the perception within the district that we have all kinds of extra money to do the hard work we do each day.every support I've asked for and even the ones i didn't ask for the district has provided me with. I believe the district is doing a lot to support my efforts as principal at my school.Filter the managerial items out for schools Minimize paperwork and reports Allow budgeting autonomy

Give me direct feedback

Hire a Human Resources Director that actually knows what it takes to run a school

I could not ask them to do anything more than they have.


I need the district to move quickly to find solutions on things that prevents our school from succeeding. For example, I want all bus students to get to school on time, so they are not consistently missing crucial instructional time.mental health/ decompression sessions, spa treatments and/ or activities to help buffer the intense demands.more help with the redesign applications

Ongoing communication and review of goals and redesign efforts. Providing necessary personnel to support efforts in new initiatives and monitoring progress on MAGS.Perhaps by leaving some opportunity for us to think and problem solve around our individual school challenges within the network.Spend more time in the buildings observing the work and listening to the stakeholders at the building level

Stay focused on instruction Provide differentiated support and PD according to indivdual school needs

Take some things off the plate instead of adding to them

The best thing that the district could do would be to allow the Educational Management Origanization (EMO) mandated to oversee the day-to-day operations of the school to have the required autonomies/flexibilities it needs to be successful. In short, the district is responsible for the school's chronic underperformance and should simply get out of the way so it can be restarted properly.The district could best support me by honoring the autonomies that they committed to in the MOU we signed with them and by ensuring that we receive resources in an equitable manner as other schools within the district.They are there for me ,if i need anyone in CO. I just never have the need. Truly!!

Turnaround has created complicated budget and staffing situations (such as partner contracts, expanded hiring, stipends) that have not had enough central support.

We need direction, targeted feedback and "on call" support from the central office.

Q17. In your view, how, if at all, does autonomy from the district make a difference, in terms of your ability to lead the school toward its redesign goals?Autonomy from the district in areas of parental involvement, behavior management, and climate and culture makes a difference because we have working groups which makes decisions that best support our school. At this time, I believe curriculum decisions are best left to the district and the directors in those curriculum areas based on "best practices" and scienctifically assessed programs.Autonomy is necessary. Each school has a unique context and challenges.

Autonomy makes all the difference in the world and it's the key factor that has allowed us to have success this year. I would argue that the areas in which we are least successful is because we do not have autonomy (or the autonomy isn't being honored) by the district.Complete control over staffing allocation would be the needed autonomy. While I can control some of the Redesign funds, I have not control over the district staffing budget allocated to my school. The one size fits all formula is inadequate for level 4 schools. This is another example of how Central Office is out of touch. We have the same rules as level 1,2 and 3 schools. What is wrong with this picture?Each school has its own profile, climate and community and as a result, decesions most often times need to be tailored to the uniquenss of the school and its circumstance. Thus having autonomy really helps to problem solve effectively.


I'm really not sure???

It is very fragmented and makes this work extremely difficult. Some efforts are fully supported and others are stopped or curbed to meet district requirements.Leading the school toward its redesign goals focus around curriculum and data decisions to have the school make academic progress.My school is in a unique position because it is a Level 4 school that is still part of a municipal school district, but overseen by an EMO. Since the EMO has come aboard …, there have been many turf wars between the EMO, the district, and the teacher union…. staff authority

The district has systems in place that supports Turnaround Schools. Without a well thought out plan for autonomy, personnel and funds to support us, we will be doomed to failure.There is very little chance to exercise autonomy.

They allow me to make decisions based on my vision of what I feel will work. Allowing me to have control over who I hire, crafting an agreement with the union allowing no movement of teachers out of my school has kept the mobility of staff stable which has made a huge difference in terms of our work here.They believe in my ability in all area's of the redesign plan and to produce solid results for the district and students.We are extremely interdependent with the district. The independence in the area of staffing so that we can hire/excess more easily than other schools is a huge benefit.While the district controls budget expenditures and provides some direction, we have been able to develop programs, schedules, and spend redesign funds as we see fit. It would be helpful to have a redesign team member from the district to communicate and provide support.Yes.

Yes. This makes a huge difference. The district at times make it difficult with its many layers.

Q18. Are there any other factors that we should be aware of that support or constrain you in your role as a redesign principal?District policies prohibit autonomy

Due to the district's status, a different direction has been chosen for the school to be phased in over the next 2 years. We are unsure exactly how this impacts our Redesign efforts.Having to submit a Redesign Plan and annual amendments is crucial to our work and I gladly do this with my team. I question why level 4 schools must also submit School Improvement Plans to our district? Isn't the Redesign Plan THE IMPROVMENT PLAN????? Another example of them being out of touch with reality.Nothing significant.

Numerous third party studies and analyses of the school say the same things: 1. The school has been chronically underperforming for over a decade; 2. There are major concerns related to social justice in the district….Our colleagues in the district that are not in turnaround schools resent us because we have these autonomies.this further isolates from others...The Accountability Team and the Transportation Team has been most helpful to our growth and development. In addition having access to various professsionals made available through the district has been a great support…


Transfer process with ancillary staff. ie;paraprofessionals.......

We have less hiring independence for administrators and paraprofessionals. The level of autonomy given to us for teachers would be helpful in those areas.

Q20. Please comment on your responses to the last question. Could changes in the frequency of any of the supports listed be beneficial in a particular way?All of these should be happening on a regular basis

I have been getting sufficient support.

More frequent review's of my school's performance as well as meetings to discuss my schools needs would be beneficial to our turn around efforts. The district monitors progress and results system wide, but more frequently for me school would be beneficial.more meetings to discuss our school needs.

More meetings with district staff to review plan, direction, needs would be beneficial to make mid-course corrections and directly tie data to components to evaluate effectiveness.Principals' should not be out of their building as frequent as this past year,and professional development for princiapls' should be differenciated according to principals skill set. This is huge for me ..the frequency is adequate

The district needs to cease and desist in order to allow the EMO the autonomies necessary to restart the school.The frequency of supports is fine. The quality fo the supports and the follow through on offered support is more problematic.The learning walks do not occur with District Office and never with the superintendent or assistant superintendent. [Others] are doing the learning walks, most who do not work in level 4 schools. This needs a major overhaul in thinking.The learning walks happen on a quarterly basis and involve district personnel. This gives us great feedback about our strengths and weaknesses.

Q22. How could the district's support in developing SRG renewal applications be improved?District support for SRG renewal was fine and appropriate. It balanced district priorities and school needs.

for my case the district did a great job with helping us on year three application.

Getting consultants to work with the team and do the actual typing into the template was a fine way to allow us to do the work but not be concerned with fitting things into a template.Hire a grant writer whom we can "feed" the information. principals ARE NOT GRANT writer and we should not have to spend an additional 50 hours doing this work as we are trying to do nearly 100 other thingsI don't necessarily think it needs to be improved. My district leadership reviewed our application all through its development.It could only be improved if we began the work a litte earlier than we did.

N/A

The district did not assist in the school's completion of the renewal application due to changes that were developing from the district turnaround plan. We were unaware of how our school would be affected and proceeded without this direction.


There could of been more of a collaborative process when writing the renewal applications.

Q24. How could the district's support in responding to SchoolWorks MSV reports be improved?District support in this area was also fine.

I am not aware of a response from the district regarding our MSV reports, however, we just had our last review last week.not sure.

Provide concrete steps to ensure that areas identified in prioritization session would be addressed.

response was adequate

Some members on the team had history (former employees of the district). I think it was not good at times because they brought a historical perception of the school. Although the school has made changes and gains. Their language one indicate a negative tone about the district.The district did not respond to my report as yet. We will take care of it, as usual, because that is the group of professionals that I work with.We weren't asked to respond. I don't know what this question is refering to.

Q27. What limitations make the district meetings less than effective? (Choose all that apply.)Each school is different and should be treated as such.

Poor follow through

Those running the meetings have never turned anything around.

Q27. Follow upPlease use the space below if you'd like to comment on your response. again each school is very unique. i don;t fault them for not having all the info

More coaching -- so all school don't have to share the same 4 coaches -- for instructional support. That being said, coaches need to be hired jointly so that they work well for both the district folks and for the schoolThere is lots of talk with the district, but there is not follow through on the items requested. It is a bad idea to ask for schools to define their needs (such as coaching), but to lack the flexibility to provide the school with the support they request. If there is not flexibility, just offer the supports that actually are available. The district has tried not to be too directive, but they are not able to respond to each school independently.

Q29. From the list below, which are the most useful aspects of the district’s monitoring of your school’s progress? Other (please specify)


Level 4 meetings

Q29. Follow up Please use the space below if you'd like to comment on your response. By sharing the work...this means when the principal has a need it is addressed in a timely manner.

Through the walkthrough results with district personnel, there is a to do list about all the items that require action and focus on our schools priority areas.

Q30. Still thinking about monitoring, what limitations make the district less than effective? (Choose all that apply.)Other (please specify)District Plans for Turn Around

Q30 Follow up Please use the space below if you'd like to comment on your response. Communication is lagging

Data is not flowing in a predictable, timely, and useable format.

School redesign efforts are impacted by new district direction.

seems like monitoring is sometimes for the sake of monitoring, rather than to support the work at the school

Q33. Still thinking about data management services, what limitations make the district less than effective? Other (please specify)lacks systems

We don't think that many of the district-mandated asessments are useful

Q33. Follow-up Please use the space below if you'd like to comment on your response. For some reason, the districts data management systems are not working for me or my school. We are data oriented but are developing our own methods.ineffective data systems, although changing because of new district-wide student information system

Q36. Still thinking about learning walks, what limitations make the district less than effective? Other (please specify)time

Q36. Follow-up Please use the space below if you'd like to comment on your response.


Learning walk analyses does not match formal observation assessments. During learning walks district administrators are very critical of the teaching and learning practices in my school. Yet when it comes to formal observations that I will use in my summative evaluations, out of 61 teachers observed by central office staff, only 2 received an 'Unsatisfactory' mark. …The teams were different each time. The teams had people who don't know how to teach. The teams differed from school to school but we were compared to one another. There wasn't consensus on what all the indicators meant.The walks are fine and provide some good information. The timing and utility of the visits is not perfect, but overall they are useful.time spent in each class too short to get a true picture of the work that must happen

Q38. What happens to the information generated through the learning walks? Other (please specify)Conversations with principal help to inform as well.

discussion

no learning walks currently happening

the items checked are dealt with by the principal. The district does nothing after the walk.

We have not had any learning walks at my school.

Q40. Still thinking about sustainability planning, what limitations make the district less than effective? Other (please specify)funding always comes into play with this. Once the grant stops the district tries to keep the supports going and budgets can change at any given time.

Q41. Is there anything else you would like us to know regarding the support your district provides your school in its redesign efforts? Are there any specific positive experiences or challenges you can share?Being named a Level 4 school brought down school morale. Now that we are making progress and support is in our building, and we are receiving community support from our Full Service Community adoption, people in the building and the community at large are talking about the great things that are happening here!I do believe that the district is trying to support us but, like all the level 4 schools, this is new territory for them as well. I believe that we need to stop thinking about just level 4 schools but make major changes that will impact all schools. The budget allocation formula in Springfield needs to be revised and all principals need to have control of their budgets. This is the type of PD that principals need--effective use of budget to impact staffing and thus, student improvement.My district supports me as much as they possibly can when you consider they have so many other schools to address as well. [We are] an extremely diverse community that has a number of variables that impact student performance. Mobility is the main variable that impacts our students performance. The district has addressed teacher mobility due to the union contract but has very little control over student mobility. They are working very closely with us to help figure out the best ways to support this problem.…The state is fully aware of the challenges facing my school and what needs to happen within the next


year in order to give my school and my students an equal playing field on which to improve.Positive comment::::: [Our school] is doing well and on the road to academic success... I would like to thank the DESE for the availability of [our district liaison] .. I have worked with [the liaison] for the last 8 years in the improvement of restructured schools and is the an added bonus to our district .. [The liaison] is an outstanding educator and I enjoy her feedback and honesty . She is a pleasure to work .. Thank you …The district has been very helpful in identifying outside partners for our school and brokering these connections. District administrators on the whole have been positive and supportive of our effortsThe district is open to innovative solutions and is willing to support our initiatives.

Q43. What makes the replacement of leadership an effective strategy in your school? How is it less than effective? Having a strong team that understands the urgency of the mission and has deep seeded skills in curriculum have been key in my school.I am not sure it is always the leadership that is the problem with students not achieveing. Some variables like mobility is not in any one leaders control. To judge the leadership or teachers based on a test that mobility impacts is not really fair. I will say that good leadership is the number one component that can make or break the culture of a school which does impact student and teacher performance.I need more leadership capacity. The district does not require APs to be instructional leaders. Rather APs in my district are solely responsible for student discipline. As a result, this is the criteria by which they are hired. In the end, the principal is the only instructional leader in the building and the only one allowed … to formally evaluate faculty and staff.It has allowed us to create a team led by a school leader with a clear vision of success for the school.

It is effective because we are able to choose the leaders that we believe have the skills to get the job done.It is effective when there is freedom to hire openly, and enough time to recruit and interview on a reasonable timeline. It does not work when there is summer hiring or limited independence.Staff and parents had lost all confidence in the previous leader. Poor performance and management added to the failure. Thus, the replacement was an effective strategy.This is a very difficult question for a person who has had 3 schools in 11 years. And have moved my staff along with with in all 3 schools. Our opininis would be different than most in the state.The school needed a new leader based on the schools history and efforts to make progress.

what was less effective was in the beginning the newly hired principal had no prior experience in running a turnaround/redesign school.

Q45. What makes the process of fostering understanding and commitment an effective strategy in your school? How is it a less than effective strategy? All staff need to buy in and must know the who, what, when, where, and why in order live the changes necessary.communication makes it more effective but in a large school that can be very difficult.

Communication with staff is key.

district and school based ILS

I don't feel the process is what fostered my understanding. I came in with a vision and beliefs of what I feel would work in improving student performance. I will say the MSV does help to focus our efforts.


Starting the year with more than 1/2 staff new to the school, we spent time explaining our mission, Redesign efforts, Level 4 status, and the change that is needed.Teachers understand and commit to the redesign mission and goals, but at times struggle to implement the initiatives and strategies in place.The focus on a school-wide improvement strategy is helpful to all of us.

The school was able to commit and work together in a context of moving the work forward.

To elicit buy in and maintain transparency

Q47. In what ways is the new leadership structure effective in bringing change? How is it less than effective? Having a dedicated person in charge of the biggest elements of the school (operations, discipline, curriculum) has allowed us to ensure that all aspects of the school are working with the mission in mind.I think we have a more systematic and structured approach at the school than we had before the turnaround. It has been a challenge to implement so many new systems at once but they are starting to take hold.It allowed us to maintain a targeted focus on targets and move together in our implementation stages.

It gave everyone a voice in the progress. Committment came from all as they were part of the process.

It is more effective because everything the leadership teams do is related back to the School Improvement plan or the Level 4 Redesign plan.Peer pressure is a fine tool to motivate people.

Results

Shared leadership is effectively

The Academies help us to establish a focus and intentional model of delivery.

The new leadership structure has provided effective means of communication, focus on data and rapid improvement strategies. It is less than effective because at first we had too many priority areas, and now have refocused our strategies.The SILT has been a success since my arrival. I have transformed it from being simply an operations team into a true instructional leadership team that focuses 100% on instructional issues, including the requirement that SILT members complete weekly Learning Rounds. The Data Team has been an utter failure this year. This will be a major focus of mine next year.the structure holds students, teachers, and parents more accountable for student learning/performance.

The team knows how to !!!

There was an effort for distributive leadership this year which led to more buy in, understanding of vision, and increased communication which has been effective in focusing on improved instruction.You have to have a structure for leadership work. The principal can not do it alone and needs to have a vision of creating teacher leaders to build a strong culture.

Q51. To what extent did the staff turnover during the first year of the grant positively impact the effectiveness of your school's redesign work?I only lost one teacher at the end of the first year and she left due to personal reasons and the stress of


being at a level 4 school.New staff knew that they were coming into a Level 4 school and that it would take committment. We also were able to take time to explain to staff the designation of Level 4 and the components of our Redesign Plan.This week I will be notifying 84 faculty members of their status: Resign or Retire = 7 (8%) --> positions excessed or replaced; Non-Renewal = 41 (49%) --> positions excessed or non-PTS/waiver teachers must reapply; Renewal = 36 (43%) --> PTS teachers renewed for next year.We collected some highly motivated teachers, but too many were inexperienced or new to the setting.

We made AYP our first year here …

When you have to hire new staff, you have to build culture and community and focus staff on the redesign efforts

Q53. What makes the use of school-based instructional coaches effective at your school? Have there been challenges with this strategy?Again, there are EMO coaches and district coaches. They do not coordinate or calibrate their activities. Therefore, their guidance to teachers can be confusing and many times simply contradictory. Next year, I plan to use only EMO coaches.Based on my learning walks and observations I'm able to deploy my coaches to where I see the need.

I have a Curriculum and Instruction teacher for ELA and a Math content teacher who work directly with students and teachers. They run Common Planning Time and Teacher Collaboration Time each week.Our Instructional coach meets with staff for professional development, and data cycles about nstructional priorities and strategies.Strong content knowledge and strong instructional practices both in the classroom and with teachers.

They are simply the best in our district.

They have had a sharp focus on both ELA and Math deficiencies, using the data to support differentiated instruction.They monitor the entire curriculum and assessment process--they ensure teachers create data driven and standards driven lessons and assessments. They also ensure that teachers are using interim data effectively.We did not have enough coaching in the first two years. When we did have school based coaching, it was effective. This was the biggest weakness in our plan.We moved to a balanced literacy model this year and the coaches were able to get into classrooms, provide feedback, set up peer-to-peer observations, and communicate with district and outside consultants, continuously monitoring implementation. A challenge was that we were unable to fill our position for math coach.With a large percentage of teachers with less than 4 years of experience, coaching is crucial in supporting these teachers to be effective educators.

Q55. What makes(use of district-based instructional coaches) this strategy effective? What are the challenges and positive aspects of this strategy for change?District coaches are not here enough and their work has no impact on the school.

District coaches support redesign goals and support co teacher teams with their instruction and best practices.


I only have one district-based instructional coach. He coaches ELL teachers. The coach is ineffective at bestTeachers receive personalized coaching and professional development that helps to inform as well as improve their teaching practice.They listen to the needs of our schools . And do what they can to assist us.

We have not needed to use them due to having the majority of my teachers are veteran teachers and my CIT and Math teacher support them.

Q56. What makes this strategy (school-based curriculum and instructional specialists) effective at your school? Are there ways that it is less than effective?Again, a lack of capacity in my school today prevents me from having these types of school-based specialists.Again, they have been through this restructured process before and KNIOW BEST PRACTICES AND JUST IMPLIMENT THEM.I have 4 ESL teachers, 3 resource teachers, and 2 reading specialists all who work doing direct instruction to children.It was hard to recruit sufficiently skilled specialists, so their impact was limited. We are hopeful that in year three we will finally assemble a sufficiently skilled team.Our school is inclusive so our special education coordinator has supported us with understanding student needs.See previous comments.

These are the same as in the previous question. Same people.

We added an ELL teacher and made a newcomer classroom for grades 3-4. A challenge is only have 3 ELL teachers for 260 coded students.

Q58. What makes the use of district-based instructional specialists effective at your school? Have there been challenges with this strategy?District staff conducted walkthroughs and identified trends. ELL staff helped with establishing newcomer program. More consistent communication and support would be helpful.

Q62. How has the use of formal structures for teacher collaboration been effective? What have been some of the challenges in using this strategy?All teachers have time to meet, plan and receive embedded coaching but at grade level and in vertical teams.hasn't been as effective due to time constraints.

My teachers get a 40 Common Planning Time every Monday which has been used partly for PD with West Ed in Formative Assessments. They also get one hour every other week for Teacher Collaboration Time to work in grade level teams to plan lessons, create assessments, and work on unpacking the New Mass Standards based on Common Core.Our teachers have 1-2 hours of common planning time a day and a 4 hour block of common planning time once a week. This has been amazing for teachers to co-plan with their grade level content team. We've struggled to find additional time to allow for entire departments to meet to ensure that curriculum is vertically aligned and to ensure that co-teachers (ESL/SpEd/Gen Ed) are able to co plan.


This has been the best way for our ILS's /coaches to communicate with our folks about data, grade levels,etc etc etc ..This year and prior to my arrival the school adopted professional learning communities. Department-level meetings still occur. However, due to a poorly constructed master schedule, common planning time was not possible this year. I am reconstructing the master schedule for next year in order to accommodate a 9th-grade academy and common planning time across all learning teams and shop clustersWe have lots of common time and I think we are making steady progress in curriculum planning and common school culture. This is building a strong foundation for the future.We have professional development every Wednesday and have teachers collaborate about best practices. In addition, teachers meet every week for grade level team meetings. Some challenges have been needing more time for content area teams to meet, and we try to do that on our Wednesdays as well.

Q63. What makes this strategy (tiered instruction) effective? How has it been less than effective?For tiered instruction to work well, the whole system of assessment, scheduling, and staffing needs to be strong and aligned. We have not yet had all elements in place.Initial efforts of skills blocks and common assessments are effective. More work is needed in this area.

MAP scores are somewhat limited in assessing reading lexiles at the high schoo level. We are moving towards using Achieve 3000 in order to address literacy concerns for all of our SPED, ELL, and below-grade level general education students.We are in progress on developing an effective tiered system of supports. We are well on the way in ELA but have struggled to find great models on what this looks like in math.We have additional time to focus on students specific needs. It has been less effective because teachers need to be trained with additional strategies.We use benchmark, formative, and summative assessments to drive our instruction.

We were doing this in my previous school so it is not new to level 4.

Q65. What needs to be changed so that tiered instruction addresses the challenges you identified above?Better training and recruitment of specialists and coaches is the most important element. Better monitoring and accountability for our efforts to make sure this is a priority for us.Due to the many variables that challage schools like mine there is a need for many support staff in order to really do tiered instruction effectively. Tiered instruction was designed for a typical classroom with 5 to 7 students who need intervention. Our classrooms have on average 12 to 15 who need intervention. In order to address that many who need support we need more support staff to service them.i'm not sure on this one either.

If I could control my staffing allocation I would be able to more effectively respond to these needs.

The master schedule today does not allow us to consistently implement tiered instruction. This should be fixed for next school year. Also, our limited financial resources greatly inhibit our ability to implement all of the interventions my school needs.We need better resources for what materials are effective in providing tiered instruction.

We need to find more resources and training to address the needs of the special education students, and the students ' with 504 plans respectively. We need to find staff with expertise in this area.


Q67. What makes restructuring the school day an effective strategy? What are the challenges of using this strategy?A well planned longer school day makes all the difference.

Adding skills blocks in literacy and mathematics was effective for differentiating. Additional PD allowed us to focus on new literacy instruction, positive behavior system, redesign work, and data analysis.See above….

Some challenges have been: We share a building with another school and so our scheduling is somewhat constrained. Effective strategy: Using additional times for tiered instruction.Some elements of our new school day did not work and we needed to change the schedule a few times.

still not enough time!!! we need a true full extra hour for student learning, and then we need another half hour for teachers every day!!!The entire stafff hated this 45 minute daily experience. Too early for the everyone to start school in an elementary school at 7:45am. The staff all voted to return to regular elementary time for next school year. 8:50am. Students' were very tired by 1:30pm on a daily basis. it was much too early for our Kindergarten and 1st grade students daily. We did not need this additional time the year before, when we did make AYP for 2011.Again, every school should be assessed for their needs, not just because the others are going to do this or that.We are making increasingly good use of extra time for both planning and student learning.

We went to a block schedule to allow each grade level to work on content areas at the same time and staggered the times so support staff could be scheduled more efficiently.

Q70. Which extended time option(s) are being employed at your school? Please use the space below if you'd like to comment on your response. It has affected our daily attendance. This was not a good idea at all.

We have seen strong growth in math but not yet in literacy.

We haven't seen tremendous student growth yet, not like I think it should be.

Q72. To what extent has extended time created opportunities for staff planning and collaboration?Please use the space below if you'd like to comment on your response. Additional PD allowed for 3 days of planning, team building, and sharing vision and redesign plan with all staff. Additional 3 Saturdays for PD allowed for collaboration around new initiatives.We gave the teachers a 50 minute planning time insted of 45 minutes per day. An increase in time.

We have made good progress in developing a strong school culture and a stronger curriculum. We are using time to steadily increase teacher instructional skill as well.We need to use this time better. The time needs to be better structured and used more efficiently.

Q74. Please describe any other strategies that have been effective in promoting change


in the areas of students' social, emotional, and health needs.ALL!!!

Focused student support team that collaborates about the ways the school, grade levels and supporting partners can strategize to help students that are in need.Implementation of 7 Habits, School Climate Team, Use of SWIS Data System, City Connects, and full-time nurseOur own use of PBIS and implementation has had the greatest impact.

Our teen clinic is crucial to providing our students with mental health counseling. We are in the process of implementing a school-wide behavioral support system for next yearStudent behavior has not been a major area of concern.

The Partnership with City Connects

Using the PBIS framework to guide improvement of school climate and student interventions has been very helpful.We also participate in Wraparound Zone grant which has support efforts begun with Redesign including implementing PBS and the addition of an Intensive Case manager (ICM).We will never be able to change this area. We don' t have control over it. We have implemented a connection with [our local] Community Health Behavioral Health department. This has connected our families and students who need support with the right support.

Q75. Which one of the strategies to support students’ social, emotional, and health needs has been most strongly associated with progress toward your school’s redesign goals? 7 Habits

Adding additional partner staff so students have more positive adult relationships has been very helpful.

Addition of ICM

Clear school wide behavioral system with support

Implementing a school wide system to support students social, emotional and health needs based on a large percentage of our students being special needs and who need additional supports.My attention as the principal to the needs of my students. Along with my leadership team.

No one strategy outweighs the others. I think it is looking at the whole child that helps us as a school help our students improve in performance.Teen Clinic

Whole class review that helps identify student needs in and out of school.

Q76. Thinking about your responses above, what challenges have you faced and what supports would your school need to better address students’ social, emotional, and health needs?

1. School-wide behavioral support system; 2. One or more adjustment counselor on-staff; 3. Common planning time and student-centered teams that will operate as both academic support


teams and behavioral support teams.

Although student behavior it is not a huge problem...developing a school wide focus and plan to address behavior and explicitly let students know expectations is on the list of " to dos".better communication with parents about how we can support each other in addressing the needs of our students.Continued outreach to families and community and coordination of services with community partners.

None!

Substantial support from parents

The amount of time it takes to understand the whole child and how that time takes away from other responsibilities that we have to take care of in running a school. Although it is very important to understand the whole child it takes a great deal of time and as a result I think it is one of the main reasons for burn out in leadership and teachers.The culture of poverty that exists in our zone impacts the families severely. We have yet to find the magic to support families and ultimately our students.We have many students that have extensive needs, more than what the school can address, and need outside services to help us.We need more expert support and outside partnerships for students with significant behavioral and emotional challenges.

Q78. Please share any additional comments about these tools. For example, how were they useful to you and what kind of challenges did they pose?It has been suggested to DESE and the Commissioner that the MSV tool be redesigned to address the specific needs of [our[ school…. MAGS are so general that they have not been very helpful.

MAGS Data was useful but only posed challenges that were primarily things that we didn't necessarily control.MSV- allowed clean eyes to come in and see what we are doing and give feedback on our work. Helped to focus our efforts. It is important that some of the same team members come back for other MSV so they can see the growth that has happened. Redesign Application- Overwhelming and very involved. Easy to get lost in it. Needs to be streamlined and more concrete and to the point. Renewal application- somewhat useful in reflecting on our work but needs to be clearer in how detailed DESE wants the school to be. MAGS- I like having targets to aim for but DESE does not keep the school updated on their progress in these targets. I had to ask where I stood. Schools want to hear from the state on how they are doing officially we should not have to call and ask.Redesign renewal application was problematic this year due to timing.

The monitoring site visits were helpful because they gave direct feedback from all sources about the schools strengths and weaknesses. All of these tools were great information, and the challenge was how to immediately address weaknesses in such a short period of time.The Schoolworks site visit we just received (year 2) was incredibly useful. The team was extremely professional and helpful and provided really useful feedback.The time frame needs to be available

They all work in conjunction with a leadership team and principal who know what and how to plan, prepare ,and perform.


Q79. How, if at all, have partnerships supported your school’s progress toward redesign goals? How could the effectiveness of the partnerships be enhanced? (Please enter "n/a" if not applicable.)Additional resources for kids are made available.

City Year has been very supportive and beneficial in helping literacy instruction in the upper grades.

Data Cycle and Admin focusing on instruction has improved from support from ANET and CCE

Investment in literacy

I take it that this is where I talk about the EMO? Inmy opinion, the EMO has made tremendous progress in less than 12 months. They hired me […], reduced the dropouts YTD by 20%,improved the attendance rate YTD 5%, cut suspensions in half, and reduced the number of arrests by over half. SInce I have started there have been no major fights at the school. As I stated before, the EMO needs full autonomy from the district to run the school.Our partners are great we have had to manage their agendas , however.

Our partnerships have helped us support our schools progress towards redesign goals by focusing on our priority areas, and working with our teachers around instruction.Partners have been extremely helpful and supportive in a multitude of ways, after opportunities to learn about the re-design goals.Partners have been great. It helped the schools in ways which the district could not support.

Partnerships have been helpful but our work at the center of change must be strong for them to pay off.

Partners played a significant role in the redesign success by supporting the instructional focus of the schoolThe district had a partnership with the Teaching Learning Alliance (TLA) which was helpful in improving literacy instruction. Through Redesign and Wraparound Zone, we developed a partner ship with Family Health to provide in-school therapy to struggling students.West Ed and [our local] Community Health have been great partners this year. [The local center] has helped in terms of families and students and West Ed in terms of teachers and instruction

Q80. What are the barriers to effective partnerships in redesign efforts? (Choose all that apply.)Other (please specify)Coordination of all resources such as partners and district personnel working together

They want to take over.

Q82. Identify one or two specific needs that could be alleviated with additional funding or human resources, and if alleviated, would help meet the redesign goals. … hire more adjustment counselors, hire and develop more leadership capacity

Additional resource staff, special education and ESL certified teachers, would help provide more students with services.Due to budget issues for FY13, my instructional coaches have been reduced drastically. It would be helpful if SRG money could pay for instructional coaches.


Having a reading interventionist at every grade level, currently we have two increasing to three but we really need six!!!Human Resources. We have many students that manifest social, emotional and behavioral issues more staff highly trained in handling SEBS students and issues would reduce fallout from academics.I am afraid of what is going to happen when we get released from Level 4 status.

I would like the ability to hire as many SPED or ELL teachers as I deem needed without being confined to the allocation formula used by the district.Reading specialists

Recruitment was inadequate. We ended up with many motivated but unskilled teachers who were not up to the task. We spent so much time hiring in the first summer that there was not enough time to plan.Staffing cuts have been consistent throughout the redesign period. Enrollment patterns have not been steady nor consistent throughout redesign period.Tutoring

We need more interventionists for ELA and Math

Q84. You indicated there were barriers to using SRG funds. Please describe the barriers.

Contracts FY12 Amendment being held based on FY13 reapplication and FY 12 amendment had various mid-cycle corrections added to support students academicallyDifficult to move budget line items once the grant was released

Funds were taken by district from all level 4 schools for salaries of the Redesign office personnel, training for ELL categories, ANET testing. The budget we are awarded is not the budget we ultimately get.The districts process for spending the funds had challenges. They did not pay consultants on time at times.Release of the money in year one was late, so hiring qualified teachers after the school year has already started was difficult. Also contracts with people was a challenge and paying stipends to employees for summer work is still a challenge.Timely pay out to partners from central office

Q86. Of the ESE-provided technical support and webinars, which was most helpful to you? Which was least helpful? DESE support … seems to target the district level more than the school level.

ESE has supported us with professional development and informational sessions about the SRG grant process.[The district liaison] has been great.

Not any jump out to me

Redesign application process.

Q87. Is there something else ESE could do, or provide, that would support you as the principal of an SRG school?


Feedback about how other schools in other districts are doing. What is working well, and what is not so that we know how we are doing in comparison.It would have been nice to feel part of a healthy network of schools taking on a challenge together. It has felt isolated and competitive rather than as a shared mission. I think that was a lost opportunity.No.

Stick to their deadlines for reporting out information. We never receive what we are supposed to when they say we should get it. It is very frustrating when we have to hit our deadlines and then they don't.

Q88. Follow up. Regarding three years being adequate time, comment on their response. Please use the space below if you'd like to comment on your response. Any change takes longer than three years especially when the leadership is coming in new. It takes time to develop the school culture alone!For my school, Level 4 Year-1 was a wash-out ….We are now at the end of Level 4 Year-2, but Year-1 of the SRG.…. I think the 3-year time limit makes sense, but only for schools in which the funding has been there for all three years….Will my school have its Level 4 status extended another year in order to accommodate the discrepancy in SRG funding?[Our school] will see great results in the MCAS 2012 reports. We are all committed to improving the school for all our students.It appears that our three-year time limit is impacted by the district turnaround plan. We will be unable to continue our current efforts due to changes implemented by district.It is good to have accountability pressure, but that could be created through a reporting and visitation plan. We are trying to build a new culture, a skilled staff, and a new stability. I'm not sure three years is enough to full establish that. Lots of time in the third year will be spent trying to plan for year four, which will be a distraction from actually implementing all of our turnaround plans.Schools need additional time to make rapid academic progress.

Q89. In your experience to date, which specific SRG efforts are the best investment of grant funds?

1. Hire more/better faculty and staff; 2. Provide more/better professional development for faculty and staff; 3. Provide more resources for EMO. 4.Require drastically underfunded schools like mine to make capital investments.

Addition of ESL teacher, stipends for longer day and additional PD.

being able to have funds hire additional people and partners. having timeline to meet gives us an "end date" of turnaround and helps us with urgencyCity Year

Coaching is the best investment since it builds capacity. We did not do enough of that.

Data management system and student assessment

Extended day for students (instructional time) and extended Professional Development for teachers (whether it's PLC's, data analysis, vertical teams, etc) has afforded us time that no other school has.Extended teacher collaboration time- longer school day for students as we are in a high crime neighborhood and rich professional developmenthiring human expertise that moves the work/initiatives that are outlined in the essential conditions of school effectiveness as outline by DESE.


My Program Specialist which is a support to the school but most importantly to me and the computer stationis in the classrooms that allow us to do small group instruction and use Successmaker more efficiently.Partnerships with external partners

People/time/interventions

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

resources and professional development

Support of longer school day and year and focus on teacher professional development and coaching.

The funding helped with TIERED support and additional resources such as technology, additional professional development for teachers.The extra time for students to receive additional instruction.

The longer school day to facilitate teacher planning that directly impacts student learning. The annual school monitoring visits also keep us focused on the mission and provide useful feedback.Time for teachers to meet.

Q90. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experience as the principal of a redesign school, or about the redesign grant program?After a difficult transition last year when staff had to reapply and we hired 23 new staff members, I felt like our school was making progress although support was inconsistent from district and state level. Now that the district has written a new turnaround plan, our efforts will be cut short as a new direction has been set.From the time of the Level 4 announcement Feb/Mar 2010 until now.......is not truly 3 years because of the planning, writing and negoitiations that needed to occur.I love my job, my school, and my students. I look forward to working more closely with DESE in the future to save my school and help my community to enter the 21st century. Thank you.I think the recruitment issue was the biggest problem for us. We were not able to find good enough coaches or teachers. We spent the whole first summer and most of the second with hiring rather than planning. That has slowed the process of change. Overall, however, it does feel like the school is improving and we are making progress. I am disappointed at the scale and rate of change so far, but optimistic that the turnaround will still be a success.Thank you for supporting children and believing in us!

Thanks, but no thanks.

This is a great initiative to make rapid improvements in failing schools. Schools need additional time to make gains and think about the sustainability of their schools after the redesign efforts have completed.Very hard work- very rewarding.

school redesign grant statewide report · web viewreading first case narratives template primer...

Documents