Thank you for your request to our REL Reference Desk regarding strategies for middle
school turnaround. The information below represents the most rigorous research
available. Researchers consider the type of methodology used and give priority to
research reports that employ well-described and thorough methods. The resources are
also selected based on the date of the publication with a preference for research from the
last ten years. Additional criteria for inclusion include the source and funder of the
resource.
Question: What are effective strategies for turning around middle schools?
1. Driven To Succeed: High-Performing, High-Poverty, Turnaround Middle
Schools. Volume I: Cross-Case Analysis of High-Performing, High-Poverty,
Turnaround Middle Schools. 2002, Picucci, A.C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R.,
and Sobel, A.; Charles A. Dana Center and the STAR Center; 82 pages; ERIC
Document # ED476107.
Source: ERIC
http://www.utdanacenter.org/downloads/products/driven/ms_vol1.pdf
According to the abstract: “This study investigated how seven high-poverty
middle schools demonstrated strong academic improvement so they were
performing at levels consistent with, and often better than, higher-income schools
in their states. Schools ranged in enrollment from 291-1,010 and represented
several community types and ethnic groups. Among the characteristics common
to the seven middle schools profiled in this study: at least 50 percent of students
participated in free or reduced-price lunch programs; schools' average
achievement scores were at or above the state averages in mathematics and
reading; schools showed a strong growth rate in reading and mathematics for at
least a three-year period; schools were public, non-charter, and non-magnet (open
enrollment) schools. Data collection involved interviews with administrators,
teachers, staff, community members, parents, and central office administrators;
focus groups with teachers, students, and parents; observations; school
documentation; and teacher surveys. What differentiated these schools from
demographically similar schools were conscious efforts by staff to understand
school contexts and work proactively to raise all students' performance. Four
characteristics emerged as essential to supporting teaching and learning: high
February 2013
Page | 1
expectations for all students; dedication to collaborative environments;
commitment to supporting teaching and learning through implementation of
thoughtful organizational structures and building the capacity of the system; and
attention to individual students and provision of extra services and supports
beyond those traditionally offered by schools.”
2. Driven To Succeed: High-Performing, High-Poverty, Turnaround Middle
Schools. Volume II: Cross-Case Analysis of High-Performing, High-Poverty,
Turnaround Middle Schools. 2002, Picucci, A.C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R.,
and Sobel, A.; Charles A. Dana Center and the STAR Center; 127 pages; ERIC
Document # ED476108.
Source: ERIC
http://www.utdanacenter.org/downloads/products/driven/ms_vol2.pdf
According to the abstract: “These case studies described how seven high-poverty
middle schools were able to demonstrate strong academic improvement in a short
amount of time so they were performing at levels consistent with, and often better
than, higher-income schools in their states. These case studies focus on procedural
knowledge that may prove useful to other schools with similar student
populations, school sizes, and community types. Site visits were used to collect
data from school administrators, teachers, staff, community members, parents,
and central office administrators. Respondents who shared their stories
enthusiastically described why their schools were successful. None of the
respondents: made excuses for not holding all students to high expectations,
complained about lack of time or resources, blamed colleagues, disparaged
administrators or districts, or used students' family and community situations as
an excuse for poor achievement. Staff members took responsibility for student
learning and found ways to provide students with the support they needed.
Schools and staff members had a collaborative, no-excuse attitude toward
identifying and solving problems.”
3. Learning from “Turnaround” Middle Schools”: Strategies for Success. 2012;
Villavicencio, A. and Grayman, J.; The Research Alliance for New York City
Schools; 76 pages.
Source: General internet search using Google
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/jnw216/RANYCS/WebDocs/R
ANYCS-MiddleSchoolTurnaround-Report-20120214.pdf
From the executive summary: “The middle grades mark a critical transition for
students. Recent research provides compelling evidence that students’ attendance,
test scores, and grades during the middle school years can strongly predict
whether or not they graduate from high school. Unfortunately, many young
people are faltering in the middle grades. In fact, less than 40 percent of 8th
graders are currently at or above proficient on standardized reading and math
tests. As in other parts of the country, middle grade students in New York City
February 2013
Page | 2
are underperforming. In 2011, after New York State raised its performance
standards, just 35 percent of the City’s 8th graders were proficient in English
Language Arts (ELA), and 52 percent were proficient in math. … This study
seeks to inform the DOE’s efforts to improve middle schools by learning more
about schools that have turned around or “beat the odds” after years of low
performance…In contrast, the turnaround schools in this study substantially
improved student performance without the infusion of extra resources or the
wholesale reassignment of students, teachers and administrators. Rather, these
schools have made improvements by drawing on existing resources and
developing internal capacity to educate students effectively. Although this kind of
transformation may not be possible for all low-performing schools, the
experiences chronicled in this report suggest important lessons for educators and
policymakers, both here in New York and around the country.”
4. Implementation of Turnaround Strategies in Chronically Low-Performing
Schools. 2012; Turnbull, B. J. and Arcaira, E. R.; Society for Research on
Educational Effectiveness; 6 pages; ERIC Document # ED535511.
Source: ERIC; abstract only
www.eric.ed.gov
According to the abstract: “There is some evidence to indicate that chronically
low-performing schools, whether improving student performance or not, often
report pursuing substantially similar policies, programs, and practices. However,
while chronically low-performing schools may pursue similar school
improvement strategies, there is some evidence that the level and quality of
implementation, as well as the coherence, alignment, and persistence of
implementation, may lead to different prospects for school turnaround. This study
investigated how school improvement efforts were implemented in turnaround
(TA) and non-improving (NI) schools, with a focus on the external and internal
conditions that were perceived to support these efforts. Findings showed that
differences between the TA and NI case study schools were apparent, although
the study's necessary reliance on individuals' memories and on a small
convenience sample dictate caution in interpreting these findings. With respect to
central improvement efforts, respondents in TA schools compared with those in
NI schools more frequently cited data use (chiefly for pinpointing individual
students' progress and needs), targeted student supports (during or beyond the
school day), and the use of common planning time for collaboration. Conversely,
more NI case study schools identified adopting new curricula or instructional
approaches as central to their work during the study period.”
5. Changing the School Climate Is the First Step to Reform in Many Schools
with Federal Improvement Grants. 2012, McMurrer, J.; Center on Education
and Policy; 16 pages; ERIC Document # ED533561.
Source: ERIC
February 2013
Page | 3
http://www.cep-dc.org/publications/index.cfm?selectedYear=2012
(Scroll down to report titled ‘Special Reports on School Improvement Grants’)
According to the abstract: “School Improvement Grants (SIGs) financed through
the economic stimulus package are intended to spur dramatic change in
persistently low-performing schools. Many state and local officials charged with
implementing SIGs view the creation of a safe, orderly, collegial, and productive
school climate as an essential step in raising student achievement, according to
case studies by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at George Washington
University. The importance of establishing a school climate conducive to learning
has also been recognized by other studies of school reform and endorsed in
federal SIG guidance. This special CEP report highlights findings about the
critical element of school climate from case studies of the first year and half of
SIG implementation in Maryland, Michigan, and Idaho. The information in the
report is based on interviews with 35 state, district, and school officials in the
three states and on in-depth reviews of six SIG-funded schools. Key findings
about school climate from the case study schools include the following: (1) All
six SIG-funded schools participating in CEP's case studies have taken steps to
create a more positive school climate--often as an initial priority before
implementing other reforms; (2) SIG-funded case study schools used a variety of
specific strategies to improve school climate--from instituting school uniforms to
increasing teacher collaboration; and (3) Administrators and teachers most often
cited improvements in school climate as their greatest success after the first year
of implementing SIGs.”
6. Turning around Low-Performing Schools in Chicago. Summary Report.
2012, de la Torre, M., Allensworth, E., Jagesic, S., Sebastian, J., Salmonowicz,
M., Meyers, C., and Gerdeman, D.R.; Consortium on Chicago School Research;
18 pages; ERIC Document # ED529371.
Source: ERIC
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/12CCSRTurnAround3.pdf
According to the abstract: “The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago
School Research and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) partnered to
examine five different models initiated by the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) in
36 schools. CPS was an early adopter of dramatic intervention strategies in lowperforming schools, and the reforms in this study were implemented between
1997 and 2010. All of the schools were identified as chronically low performing
and were reformed in ways consistent with the elements described in the school
improvement models recommended by the federal government. The goals of the
study were to make clear how school reform occurred in Chicago--showing the
actual changes in the student population and teacher workforce at the schools-and to learn whether these efforts had a positive effect on student learning overall.
Since 1997, CPS has initiated five distinct reforms that aim to dramatically
February 2013
Page | 4
improve low-performing schools in a short time. These initiatives are
Reconstitution (seven high schools), School Closure and Restart (six elementary
schools and two high schools), placement into the School Turnaround Specialist
Program (STSP) model (four elementary schools), placement into the Academy
for Urban School Leadership (AUSL) model (ten elementary schools and two
high schools), and placement into the CPS Office of School Improvement (OSI)
model (two elementary schools and three high schools). Main findings from the
study include: (1) Elementary/middle schools that went through reform made
significant improvements in test scores compared with similar schools that did
not; however, large improvements did not occur immediately in the first year; (2)
High schools that underwent reform did not show significant improvements in
absences or ninth grade on-track-to-graduate rates over matched comparison
schools, but recent high school efforts look more promising than earlier ones; (3)
Schools that underwent reform generally served the same students as before
intervention, with the exception of one model of reform; (4) Schools under the
Closure and Restart model experienced substantial changes to their student body
composition; (5) The vast majority of teachers in schools under Closure and
Restart, AUSL and OSI models were not rehired after reform; and (6) The teacher
workforce after intervention across all models was more likely to be white,
younger, and less experienced, and was more likely to have provisional
certification than the teachers who were at those schools before the intervention.
School-by-School Changes in Student Achievement are appended.”
Search Process:
Key words and search strings used in the search:
Turnaround AND Middle School, School Turnaround, School Improvement AND
Middle School
Search databases and websites:
Institute of Education Sciences Resources (IES): Regional Educational Laboratory
Program (REL); IES Practice Guides; What Works Clearinghouse (WWC); Doing What
Works (DWW); Institute of Education Sciences (IES); National Center for Education
Research (NCER); National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
(NCEE); National Center for Special Education (NCSER); National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES);
Other Federally Funded Resources: The Assessment and Accountability
Comprehensive Center; The Center on Innovation and Improvement; The Center on
Instruction; The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality; National Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; National Center for
Performance Incentives; National Research and Development Center on School Choice,
February 2013
Page | 5
Competition and Achievement; National Research Center for Career and Technical
Education; National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
Search Engines and Databases: EBSCO Databases; ERIC; Google, Google Scholar;
General Internet Search
Additional Resources: Education Development Center; WestEd; American Institutes of
Research; The Campbell Collaboration; Center on Education Policy (CEP); Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO); Data Quality Campaign; The Education Trust;
GreatSchools; Just for Kids; Kids Count; National Association of State Boards of
Education (NASBE); National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL);
Disclaimer:
This Ask A REL response was developed by REL-NEI under Contract ED-IES-12-C-0009
from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. The content does
not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education,
nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
February 2013
Page | 6