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 Staff
Greta Shultz, Project Manager/Senior Research
Manager
Lonnie Kaufman, Senior Research Manager
Annette Hunt, Research Manager
Molly Breitbart, Research Analyst
Steven 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
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 Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
100 Venture Way, Suite 5
Hadley, MA 01035-9462
(413) 587-2400
(413) 587-2410 to send a fax
www.donahue.umassp.edu
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Contents
School Redesign Grant
Contents
Tables and Figures .................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. i
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3
Organization of the Report and Notes on Style ............................................................... 7
II. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 8
Evaluation Design ........................................................................................................... 8
Data Collection Activities .................................................................................................... 9
Document Review ............................................................................................................... 9
Study Participant Interviews.............................................................................................. 10
District Leaders .................................................................................................... 10
ESE District Liaisons ............................................................................................ 10
Principals, Teachers, and School Staff ................................................................ 10
Principals’ Survey.............................................................................................................. 11
Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 11
Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 11
III. Results ............................................................................................................................... 12
A.
B.
Overview: Perspectives on Redesign ................................................................ 12
Perceptions of SRG Associated with Improvements .......................................... 17
B.1. The District’s Role in Redesign ................................................................................. 17
District support tends to take the form of passionate and engaged – yet isolated –
individuals ............................................................................................................ 17
Call for coordinated, system-wide efforts ............................................................. 18
Perceptions of the extent and nature of district involvement in redesign, and
implications .......................................................................................................... 20
Autonomy: Principals’ staffing autonomy is seen as critical to redesign success
(sustained momentum and stable workforce) ...................................................... 21
Budget, curriculum and scheduling autonomy valued by principals .................... 23
Other valuable aspects of district involvement: Networking opportunities,
partnerships and coaching ................................................................................... 23
Partnerships: valued district component and need for increased district
involvement .......................................................................................................... 23
Coaching: a multi-purpose solution to challenges inherent in redesign (staff
turnover, principal mentorship, teacher growth, student growth) ......................... 24
Additional views on effectiveness—and needed changes—in district-level support
............................................................................................................................. 25
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Contents
School Redesign Grant
“The district is like a ghost”: Call for improved understanding of schools
(increased time and more direct interaction between districts and schools) ....... 28
Additional suggestions for effective district support: targeted feedback and
differentiated PD .................................................................................................. 28
Sensitivity to political issues................................................................................. 29
B.2.Leadership in Redesign .............................................................................................. 29
Principals’ Role: Expectations and Burnout ......................................................... 30
Distributed Leadership ......................................................................................... 32
Challenges of Distributed Leadership .................................................................. 33
Implications .......................................................................................................... 34
Strategies to enhance the effectiveness of distributed leadership models .......... 35
B.3. School Redesign and Instruction ............................................................................... 36
Coaches and Specialists ...................................................................................... 36
Synergy: Results accrue through integrated efforts and strategies ..................... 37
Formal Collaboration and Planning Time ............................................................ 38
Extended Learning Time and Restructuring the School Day ............................... 39
Restructuring the Schedule: Principals’ Needs for Technical Assistance and
Coaching .............................................................................................................. 40
Tiered Instruction: Calls for PD and for Differentiated Support ........................... 41
Collection and Use of Data to Inform Instruction ................................................. 42
Professional Development: One Size does Not Fit All ........................................ 43
B.4. Approaches to Supporting Social-Emotional Health under Redesign ....................... 43
Ambiguity about schools’ capacity to influence change in this arena .................. 44
Perceived effectiveness of SRG-supported strategies ........................................ 44
Examples: key factors include onsite services, key support staff positions,
professional development, and partnerships ....................................................... 46
Synergy of SRG strategies yields perceived impact on school culture and
students’ attitudes and beliefs about school ........................................................ 47
Additional areas of need ...................................................................................... 47
B.5. Focus on Sustainability: Planning Needed ................................................................ 47
C.
Feedback to ESE: Implementation of the School Redesign Grant program ....... 49
Sensitivity to Competing Demands on Level 4 Schools ................................................... 50
Sensitivity to Politics and Public Perception ..................................................................... 50
ESE’s Accountability to Schools and Districts .................................................................. 51
Requests for ESE to Spend More Time in Schools .......................................................... 51
School Redesign Tools and Processes ............................................................................ 52
Monitoring Site Visits ........................................................................................................ 52
Measurable Annual Goals (MAGs) ................................................................................... 54
SRG Applications .............................................................................................................. 54
Renewals ............................................................................................................. 54
A call for Support with the Application and Reapplication Processes ................. 55
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
Contents
School Redesign Grant
Role of the ESE Liaisons: Opportunities for Enhanced Roles and Responsibilities ......... 55
Further support.................................................................................................................. 56
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 57
Appendix A: Research Plan ................................................................................................... 61
Appendix B: District Leaders Protocol and Interview Guide ............................................... 69
Appendix C: Survey Instrument ............................................................................................ 74
Appendix D: Open-ended Responses ................................................................................... 93
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
School Redesign Grant
Tables and Figures
Tables and Figures
Table 1. Effectiveness of SRG/Turnaround Strategies ............................................................................... 13
Table 2. Staff Turnover in the First Year of Redesign................................................................................ 14
Table 3. Extent of Positive Impact of Staff Turnover ................................................................................. 14
Table 4. Financial and Human Resources are Sufficient for Turnaround Goals ........................................ 15
Table 5. Perceptions of Three-year Time Limit in Relation to Change and Goals ..................................... 16
Table 6. Supports Provided to the Principal by the District ........................................................................ 18
Table 7. Autonomy: Need for District Involvement ................................................................................... 21
Table 8. Effectiveness of School- and District-based Coaches and Specialists .......................................... 24
Table 9. Frequency of Activities Needed to Further Progress Toward Goals ............................................ 25
Table 10. Usefulness of District Supports .................................................................................................. 26
Table 11. Elements of District Support Found Useful ................................................................................ 26
Table 12. Limitations of District that Make Support Less than Effective .................................................. 27
Table 13. Expectations of Redesign Principals ........................................................................................... 31
Table 14. Effectiveness of School- and District-based Coaches and Specialists ........................................ 36
Table 15. Extended Time Option Used by School...................................................................................... 39
Table 16. Impacts of Extended Time Strategies ......................................................................................... 39
Table 17. Primary Challenges to Consistent Implementation of Tiered Instruction ................................... 41
Table 18. Effectiveness of Strategies for Students’ Social, Emotional, and Health Needs ........................ 45
Table 19. Usefulness of ESE’s Support in Progress Towards Change ....................................................... 49
Table 20. Usefulness of ESE’s Redesign Tools for Promoting Change ..................................................... 52
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
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.
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
i
School Redesign Grant
Executive Summary
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
ii
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:
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
3
School Redesign Grant
Introduction
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 subjectspecific 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--
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
4
School Redesign Grant
Introduction
(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:
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
5
Introduction
School Redesign Grant
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
6
School Redesign Grant
Introduction
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
7
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.
Secondary questions in support of this primary question include:
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
8
School Redesign Grant
Methodology
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
9
School Redesign Grant
Methodology
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 Leaders
Two 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 Liaisons
All 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
10
School Redesign Grant
Methodology
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
11
Results
School Redesign Grant
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)?
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
12
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
Effective
Somewhat
effective
Not at all
effective
Too soon
to tell
Not
occurring
at my
school
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%)
Very
effective
Formal structures for teacher
collaboration (PLCs, common
planning time, grade level
meetings) (n=19)
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
13
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
Frequency
Percentage
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
14
Results
School Redesign Grant
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!!!
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
15
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
Disagree
Strongly
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
16
Results
School Redesign Grant
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 districtprovided 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
17
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
Frequency
Percentage
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
10
41.7
10
41.7
8
33.3
8
33.3
7
29.2
Open-door policies at the district that allow me to share both
challenges and successes with district staff or leaders
Formal coaching and/or mentoring to support my leadership
of the school (e.g., from an individual, advisory team, or
outside consultant)
Facilitation of professional networks (principal network,
urban district network, turnaround network)
Formal assessment of my job performance (involving use of a
rubric or protocol, scheduled assessments/observations,
formalized feedback)
Monitoring external partnerships
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].
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
18
Results
School Redesign Grant
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
19
Results
School Redesign Grant
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 implications
Overall, 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:
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
20
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
Increased
involvement
Decreased
involvement
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%)
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
21
Results
School Redesign Grant
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
22
Results
School Redesign Grant
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 involvement
As 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
23
Results
School Redesign Grant
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., decisionmaking 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
Effective
Somewhat
effective
Not at all
effective
Too soon
to tell
Not
occurring
at my
school
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%)
Very
effective
School-based instructional
coaches
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
24
Results
School Redesign Grant
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 support
The 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
25
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
Useful
Somewhat
useful
Not
useful
Too soon
to tell
Not
occurring
at my
school
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%)
–
–
4 (19.0%)
3 (14.3%)
1 (4.8%)
8 (38.1%)
5 (23.8%)
Very
useful
District-provided data
management services
Assistance with sustainability
planning
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%)
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
26
Results
School Redesign Grant
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 type
Conversely, 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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
27
Results
School Redesign Grant
“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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
28
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
29
Results
School Redesign Grant
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 socialemotional 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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
30
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
31
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
Frequency
Percentage
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 Leadership
It 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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
32
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
33
Results
School Redesign Grant
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
34
Results
School Redesign Grant
Strategies to enhance the effectiveness of distributed leadership models
Although 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
35
Results
School Redesign Grant
-
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 Specialists
An 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
Effective
Somewhat
effective
Not at all
effective
Too soon
to tell
Not
occurring
at my
school
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%)
1 (5.3%)
6 (31.6%)
1 (5.3%)
2 (10.5%)
–
8 (42.1%)
Very
effective
School-based instructional
coaches
District-based instructional
and/or curriculum specialists
n=19
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
36
Results
School Redesign Grant
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, schoolbased 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 districtbased 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 strategies
In 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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
37
Results
School Redesign Grant


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 Time
Formal 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
38
Results
School Redesign Grant
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).
Table 15. Extended Time Option Used by School
Frequency
Percentage
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
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 all
Too soon
to tell
Don’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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
39
Results
School Redesign Grant
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.
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.”
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
40
Results
School Redesign Grant
Tiered Instruction: Calls for PD and for Differentiated Support
A 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
Frequency
Percentage
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
41
Results
School Redesign Grant
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 teambased 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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
42
Results
School Redesign Grant
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
43
Results
School Redesign Grant
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
44
Results
School Redesign Grant
Table 18. Effectiveness of Strategies for Students’ Social, Emotional, and Health Needs
Effective
Somewhat
effective
Not at all
effective
Too soon
to tell
Not
occurring
at my
school
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%)
–
1 (5.3%)
9 (47.4%)
3 (15.8%)
2 (10.5%)
1 (5.3%)
3 (15.8%)
1 (5.3%)
10 (52.6%)
6 (31.6%)
–
1 (5.3%)
–
1 (5.3%)
9 (47.4%)
7 (36.8%)
–
2 (10.5%)
–
Very
effective
Implement a school-wide
system of support for students
(such as social services, student
support teams, counseling,
nutrition, dental services, etc.).
Share student progress
information with appropriate
community partners.
Implement systems/processes
that allow the school to work
with families to address
students’ social, emotional,
and health needs.
Form relationships between
community partners and the
school.
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
45
Results
School Redesign Grant



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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
46
Results
School Redesign Grant
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 school
Some 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 need
In 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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
47
Results
School Redesign Grant
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
48
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
Useful
Somewhat
useful
Not
useful
Too soon
to tell
Not
occurring
at my
school
3 (15.8%)
6 (31.6%)
7 (36.8%)
1 (5.3%)
–
2 (10.5%)
2 (10.5%)
5 (26.3%)
6 (31.6%)
1 (5.3%)
1 (5.3%)
4 (21.1%)
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%)
1 (5.3%)
6 (31.6%)
2 (10.5%)
3 (15.8%)
2 (10.5%)
5 (26.3%)
–
3 (15.8%)
6 (31.6%)
3 (15.8%)
3 (15.8%)
4 (21.1%)
District Liaison’s participation
in MSV “report outs”
District Liaison’s participation
in walkthroughs or learning
walks
Support regarding student
performance data that helps
drive improvement efforts
Support with union
negotiations necessary for
implementation of the
redesign plan
Facilitation of community
partnerships, such as social
service providers
Very
useful
n=19
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
49
Results
School Redesign Grant
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
50
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
51
Results
School Redesign Grant
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
Useful
Somewhat
useful
Not
useful
Too soon
to tell
Not
occurring
at my
school
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%)
–
–
–
Very
useful
SchoolWorks site monitoring
visits
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
52
Results
School Redesign Grant
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 followup 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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
53
Results
School Redesign Grant
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.
Renewals
A 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
54
Results
School Redesign Grant
Department meetings and other reviews. These principals had understood the tool to be a forum for selfreflection, 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 Processes
In 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
55
Results
School Redesign Grant
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
56
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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
57
School Redesign Grant
Conclusions and Recommendations
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 schoolwide 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
58
School Redesign Grant
Conclusions and Recommendations
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
Conclusions and Recommendations
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
60
Appendix A
School Redesign Grant
Appendix A: Research Plan
School Redesign Grant
Research 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.
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.
1
Appendix A
School Redesign Grant
C. Purpose and Overview of Research 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:
Primary Research Question 1: How can ESE best support and manage the SRG project?
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:
2
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?
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.
Appendix A
School Redesign Grant
Primary Research Question 2: In what ways and to what extent is SRG associated with schools’
turnaround progress and improvements in student success?
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.
Secondary questions in support of this primary question include:
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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix A
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).
Task
Project start-up
3
PHASE I TASKS, TIMELINE, RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
Timeline
Details and responsible party/parties
December UMDI will assemble the project team and orient
Jan. 15
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.
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.
Appendix A
School Redesign Grant
Document review
January
ESE interview
January
Interviews with ESE
partners
January and
continuing into
February
Instrument preparation
January and
continuing into
February
Sampling plans
January and
continuing into
February
UMDI will confer with ESE by Jan. 5, 2012.
Boston Public Schools approval to conduct
research: UMDI will complete and submit initial
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. )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Appendix A
School Redesign Grant
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 PARTIES
Task
Timeline
Details and responsible party/parties
Interviews with ESE’s
February
As needed, UMDI will conduct telephone
partners
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
Conduct of district
leaders interviews
Logistics, principal
survey
Feb- March
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.
Telephone interviews Feb. 27 – March 9
Phase III: Site visits
February
ESE provides UMDI contact info for principals
survey, by Feb. 15
UMDI finalizes principals survey instrument,
formatting (Survey Monkey), and logistics, by
Feb. 22
UMDI administers principals survey, Feb. 29 –
March 14
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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix A
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 PARTIES
Task
Timeline
Details and responsible party/parties
Sampling plan (school
March 1 -9
UMDI will confer with ESE to identify the focal
visits)
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
March 12 –
UMDI will submit interview protocols to ESE for
visits
April 6
review, by March 20.
ESE will provide feedback on interview protocols
by March 27.
Conduct of school
April 2 -6
UMDI will make every effort to conduct site visits
visits
April 9 – 13
at the convenience of school and district
Apr 23-May
personnel. However, the study’s ambitious
11
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.
Appendix A
School Redesign Grant
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.
Appendix B
School Redesign Grant
Appendix B: District Leaders Protocol and Interview Guide
ESE School Redesign Grant
District Leaders
Protocol and Informed Consent
Interview 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.
Primary Research Question 1: How can ESE best support and manage the SRG project?
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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix B
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?
Primary Research Question 2: In what ways and to what extent is SRG associated with schools’
turnaround progress and improvements in student success?
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 (gshultz@donahue.umassp.edu/413.587.2406), or Erica Champagne at ESE
(echampagne@doe.mass.edu/781.338.3521).
Appendix B
School Redesign Grant
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?
School Redesign Grant
Appendix B
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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix B
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, reapplication…]
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?
Appendix C
School Redesign Grant
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 months
o 7 months – 11 months
o 1 – 2 years
o 3 –4 years
5 –6 years
o
7 – 8 years
o 9 –10 years
o More than 10 years
2. How long have you been a school principal (at this school and elsewhere)?
o 1–6 months
o 7 months – 11 months
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
Appendix C
School Redesign Grant
o
o
o
o
o
o
1 – 2 years
3 – 4 years
5 – 6 years
7 – 8 years
9 –10 years
More than 10 years
3. How long have you been the principal at your current school?
o 1 – 6 months
o 7 months - 11 months
o 1 – 2 years
o 3-4 years
o 5-6 years
o 7-8 years
o 9-10 years
o More than 10 years
4. How long have you worked in your current school district?
o 1 – 6 months
o 7 months - 11 months
o 1 – 2 years
o 3-4 years
o 5-6 years
o 7-8 years
o 9-10 years
o 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?
Realistic
Somewhat
realistic
Unrealistic
Recruiting and hiring staff that are competent and
committed
Articulating a clear vision of the school and its mission
Fostering and sustaining teachers’ commitment to the
redesign plan
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
Appendix C
Evaluating teachers’ skills and knowledge
Implementing effective professional development
structures for staff
Implementing effective systems of data collection and
analysis
Increasing student achievement so that the school
meets its academic goals
Increasing positive student behaviors
Having a working knowledge of the status of each
classroom
Improving communication with students’ families
Improving students’ social and emotional health
Building strong ties with community partners
Creating 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
o
o
o
To a great extent
To some extent
Not at all
Too soon to tell
8. What measures are in place to protect you from burnout?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Ongoing communications with ESE (“think partner,” troubleshooting)
Collegial networks (principals’ networks, turnaround networks, etc.)
Professional associations
Incentives and rewards for successful performance (stipends, contractual conditions)
Distributed leadership: shared responsibility across school teams
Ongoing communications with the district
No mechanisms in place
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]
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
Appendix C
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
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Formal assessment of my job performance (involving use of a rubric or protocol, scheduled
assessments/observations, formalized feedback)
Formal coaching and/or mentoring to support my leadership of the school (e.g., from an individual,
advisory team, or outside consultant)
Informal assessment and/or mentoring provided by a district leader
Open-door policies at the district that allow me to share both challenges and successes with district staff
or leaders
District staff or leaders from whom I can solicit support or feedback
Facilitating and coordinating external partnerships in the redesign efforts
Monitoring external partnerships
Facilitating professional networks (principal network, urban district network, turnaround network)
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
o
o
o
Always accessible
Usually accessible
Sometimes accessible
Rarely accessible
14. How much autonomy do you have from the district?
o
o
o
Nearly complete autonomy: I make most decisions independently of the district.
Some autonomy: I can make some decisions without them, but not others.
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.
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
Appendix C
School Redesign Grant
Increased
involvement
Decreased
involvement
No change
in
involvement
needed
Too soon to
tell
Budgets and expenditures
Curriculum
Tiered instruction practices
Staffing – personnel and schedules
Student behavior management
Family outreach and relations
Student data management and analysis
Community partnerships
The principal’s (your) professional
development
Development of team leadership
Staff professional development
Sustainability 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
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
Appendix C
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.
o
o
o
o
To what extent was the district’s support in developing your school’s SRG renewal application(s) useful?
To a great extent
To some extent
Not at all
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.
o
o
o
o
To what extent was the district’s support in responding to SchoolWorks MSV reports useful?
To a great extent
To some extent
Not at all
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 useful
o Useful
o Somewhat useful
o Not useful
o Too soon to tell
o Not occurring at my school
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
Appendix C
25.
o
o
o
o
From the list below, which are the most useful aspects of the district meetings? (Choose all that apply.)
District understands and articulates our school’s needs
District contributes expertise in some areas
Keeps our focus on our redesign goals
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.
o
o
o
o
o
What limitations make the district meetings less than effective? (Choose all that apply.)
District lacks expertise in some areas
Incomplete understanding of our school’s needs
Low district capacity (lack of staff, limited time)
Ineffective communication
Other (please specify) _________________________
28. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
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 useful
o Useful
o Somewhat useful
o Not useful
o Too soon to tell
o 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 needs
o District contributes expertise in specific areas
o Keeps our focus on our redesign goals
o District shares responsibility for the work that needs to get done
o Other (please specify) _________________________
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
Appendix C
31. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
32. Still thinking about monitoring, what limitations make the district less than effective? (Choose all that
apply.)
o District lacks expertise in some areas
o Incomplete understanding of our school’s needs
o Low district capacity (lack of staff, limited time)
o Ineffective communication
o Other (please specify) _________________________
33. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
34. How useful is the district’s provision of data management services (e.g., staffing, collection of data,
analysis, reporting, etc.)?
o Very useful
o Useful
o Somewhat useful
o Not useful
o Too soon to tell
o 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 needs
o District contributes expertise in specific areas
o Keeps our focus on our redesign goals
o District shares responsibility for the work that needs to get done
o Other (please specify) _________________________
36. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
37.
o
o
o
o
o
Still thinking about data management services, what limitations make the district less than effective?
District lacks expertise in some areas
Incomplete understanding of our school’s needs
Low district capacity (lack of staff, limited time)
Ineffective communication
Other (please specify) _________________________
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
Appendix C
38. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
39.
o
o
o
o
o
o
How useful is the evidence from the district’s learning walks?
Very useful
Useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful
Too soon to tell
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.)
o District understands and articulates our school’s needs
o District contributes expertise in specific areas
o Keeps our focus on our redesign goals
o District shares responsibility for the work that needs to get done
o Other (please specify) _________________________
41. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
42.
o
o
o
o
o
Still thinking about learning walks, what limitations make the district less than effective?
District lacks expertise in some areas
Incomplete understanding of our school’s needs
Low district capacity (lack of staff, limited time)
Ineffective communication
Other (please specify) _________________________
43. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
o
o
What happens to the information generated through the learning walks? (Choose all that apply.)
The district develops PD to support areas of weakness identified in the learning walks.
Feedback from the learning walks is provided to the teachers who were observed.
Results of the learning walks are discussed in professional learning communities at the school Schoolbased instructional specialists use the results to inform their work with staff and/or students.
School-based PD is identified to support areas of weakness identified in the learning walks.
Other (please specify) _________________________
45.
o
o
o
o
How useful is the district’s assistance with sustainability planning?
Very useful
Useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful
44.
o
o
o
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
o
o
Appendix C
Too soon to tell
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.)
o District understands and articulates our school’s needs
o District contributes expertise in specific areas
o Keeps our focus on our redesign goals
o District shares responsibility for the work that needs to get done
o Other (please specify) _________________________
47. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
48.
o
o
o
o
o
Still thinking about sustainability planning, what limitations make the district less than effective?
District lacks expertise in some areas
Incomplete understanding of our school’s needs
Low district capacity (lack of staff, limited time)
Ineffective communication
Other (please specify) _________________________
49. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
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 changemakers 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 effective
o Effective
o Somewhat effective
o Not at all effective
o Too soon to tell
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
o
Appendix C
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 effective
o Effective
o Somewhat effective
o Not at all effective
o Too soon to tell
o 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)?
o Very effective
o Effective
o Somewhat effective
o Not at all effective
o Too soon to tell
o Not yet occurring at my school
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%
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
o
o
o
o
Appendix C
26 -50%
51-80%
More than 80%
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 extent
o To some extent
o Not at all
o Don’t know
60. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
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):
o
o
o
o
o
o
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not at all effective
Too soon to tell
Not yet occurring at my school
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
o
o
o
o
o
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not at all effective
Too soon to tell
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]
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
Appendix C
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)
o
o
o
o
o
o
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not at all effective
Too soon to tell
Not yet occurring at my school
66. What makes this strategy effective at your school? Are there ways that it is less than effective? [openended]
67. Use of district-based instructional and/or curriculum specialists (ELL, special education, reading
specialists):
o
o
o
o
o
o
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not at all effective
Too soon to tell
Not yet occurring at my school
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
o
o
o
o
o
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not at all effective
Too soon to tell
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)?
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
School Redesign Grant
o
o
o
o
o
o
Appendix C
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not at all effective
Too soon to tell
Not yet occurring at my school
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
o
o
o
o
o
Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not at all effective
Too soon to tell
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
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Inexperienced teachers
Student behaviors
No system for managing data
No system for using assessment data
Additional PD is needed so that teachers understand tiered instruction
Additional PD is needed so that teachers can use data to inform instruction
Many teachers lack strong behavior management skills
A cohesive, well-articulated instructional plan that is relevant to all teachers
Meeting the needs of English Language Learners
Meeting the needs of the special education population
Other (please specify) _________________________
76. What needs to be changed so that tiered instruction addresses the challenges you identified above? [openended]
77. Which extended time option(s) are being employed at your school? (Choose all that apply.)
o Restructured school day
o Additional minutes to school day
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
Appendix C
School Redesign Grant
o
o
o
o
78.
o
o
o
o
o
Additional time on weekends
Additional time during vacation weeks
Additional time in summer
Other (please describe) _________________________
To what extent has extended time been associated with improved student growth?
To a great extent
To some extent
Not at all
Too soon to tell
Don’t know
79. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
80.
o
o
o
o
To what extent has extended time created opportunities for staff planning and collaboration?
To a great extent
To some extent
Not at all
Don’t know
81. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
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
strategies been in promoting
change at your school?
Very
effective
Effective
Somewhat
effective
Not at all
effective
Too soon
to tell
Not
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,
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
Appendix C
School Redesign Grant
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
Useful
Somewh
at useful
Not
useful
Too soon
to tell
Not
Occurring
SchoolWorks site monitoring
visits
Redesign application
Redesign 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]
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
Appendix C
School Redesign Grant
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.
o
o
o
o
o
What are the barriers to effective partnerships in redesign efforts?
Lack of understanding among partners of the redesign goals
Competing agendas
Challenges to coordinating partners’ efforts
We have not experienced any barriers.
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
Disagree
Strongly
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 Yes
o No
93. You indicated there were barriers to using SRG funds. Please describe the barriers. [open-ended]
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
Appendix C
School Redesign Grant
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
Useful
Somewhat
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
applications
Support regarding student
performance data that
helps drive improvement
efforts
Support 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]
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
Appendix C
School Redesign Grant
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
Disagree
Strongly
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.
98. Please use the space below if you’d like to comment on your response. [open-ended]
99. In your experience to date, which specific SRG efforts are the best investment of grant funds? [openended]
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]
UMass Donahue Institute
Research and Evaluation Group
59
Appendix D
School Redesign Grant
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 in
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.
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 steam
While 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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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 district
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.
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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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 longterm 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 Support
One 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 Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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
things
I 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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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 up
Please 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
school
There 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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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 efforts
The 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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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
best
Teachers 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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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 clusters
We 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 belowgrade 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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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 fulltime nurse
Our 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 year
Student 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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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 applicationsomewhat 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
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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
school
The 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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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 academically
Difficult 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.
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
[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 urgency
City Year
School Redesign Grant
Appendix D
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 development
hiring 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.
School Redesign Grant
Very hard work- very rewarding.
Appendix D