mspresentation - The Charles A. Dana Center

Middle Level School Principal Seminar

March 30, 2004

High-Performing, High-Poverty,

Turnaround Middle Schools

Middle Level School Principal Seminar

In partnership of

TASSP, Dana Center, STAR Center, and UTEP

Slide 1

March 30, 2004

Doubletree Hotel, Austin, Texas

© Charles A. Dana Center


Seminar Goals

March 30, 2004

1.

What can be learned from highperforming, high poverty, turn-around middle schools?

2.

How does my school compare to highperforming, high poverty, turn-around middle schools?

3.

What can be done to begin the improvement process at my school?

Slide 2 © Charles A. Dana Center


Turning Points 2000

March 30, 2004



Guiding Questions (Marzano)

March 30, 2004

1.

To what extent do people in schools engage in certain behaviors to address a wide variety of issues?

2.

How much will a change in our current practices increase the academic achievement of our students?

3.

How much effort will it take to significantly change your current practices?



Driven To Succeed:

March 30, 2004

Slide 5

High-Performing, High-Poverty,

Turnaround Middle Schools

Ali Picucci

Rahel Kahlert

Amanda Brownson

Andrew Sobel

Charles A. Dana Center –University of Texas at Austin

Prepared for: The U.S. Department of Education’s Planning and

Evaluation Service

The cross case analysis and the case studies are available on the

Charles A. Dana Web site: www.utdanacenter.org



Overview of Study

March 30, 2004

This study investigated how seven high-poverty middle schools managed to demonstrate strong academic improvement

The purpose of this study was

• To contribute to a larger body of work

• To focus on what practices, policies, and belief systems enhanced teaching and learning

• To capture procedural knowledge that will be useful to other schools in a similar context

• To provide recommendations suggested by the findings



Site selection

March 30, 2004

The seven public middle schools selected had the following characteristics:

•

•

•

•

• A strong growth rate

Student performance at or above the state average

At least 50 percent participation in free or reduced-price lunch program

Represented typical high-poverty schools

A good reputation among educational leaders



March 30, 2004

Location of the middle schools

1. Tonasket, WA

2. Eagle Pass, TX

3. Houston, TX

4. Rockcastle, KY

5. Atlanta, GA

6. Pokomoke, MD

7. Utica, NY



Methods

March 30, 2004

•

One four-day visit to each site

•

Interviews

•

Focus groups

•

Observations

•

Teacher surveys

•

Document collection

•

Transcribed and coded interview and focus group data for analysis



Limitations of the study

March 30, 2004

•

Schools did not have a control group

•

School visit took place at one point in time

•

Classroom practices were not a focus of this study

•

Teacher certification issues

•

School improvement sustainability



Key findings

March 30, 2004

The key findings address two broad areas:

Characteristics (Part 1)

To understand characteristics of high poverty middle schools that have demonstrated strong performance

Change and Improvement (Part 2)

To understand the process how schools changed and improved



Reading Assignment

March 30, 2004

Executive Summary pages 2-4

•

Read in 6 chunks

• Findings of This Study

• Schools That Support Teaching and Learning

•

• Key Finding 1

Key Finding 2

• Key Finding 3

• Key Finding 4

•

After each chunk, turn to a neighbor and

“Say Something” about what you read.



Part 1:

Key findings —Characteristics

March 30, 2004

To support teaching and learning, these schools were:

I.

Driven by a common purpose of high expectations for all

II.

Dedicated to collaborative environments

III.

Creating thoughtful organizational structures and building the capacity of the system

IV. Attentive to individual students and their needs



Characteristics:

I. High expectations

March 30, 2004

High expectations were sustained through:

• Caring about individual students

• Instilling pride and recognition for student and staff

• Staying focused on high expectations for all



March 30, 2004

II. Dedication to collaborative environments

Collaborative environments were built by:

• Collaborating in schools

• Redefining relationships within districts

• Seeking relationships with outside entities



March 30, 2004

III. Organizational structures and capacity

These schools supported teaching and learning through:

• Implementing organizational structures

• Using data to make informed decisions

• Redefining staff development



March 30, 2004

IV. Attention to individual students

Being attentive to individual students required providing resources such as time and money that could be used for:

• Preventing students from being invisible

• Extending the school day

• Expanding academic opportunities during the school day

• Transitioning elementary students



Challenges

March 30, 2004

All of these schools faced challenges to:

• Maintaining high expectations

• Maintaining collaborative environments

• Creating organizational structures

• Providing individual attention to each student



Walk Away With:

March 30, 2004

To support teaching and learning, these schools were:

I.

Driven by a common purpose of high expectations for all

II.

Dedicated to collaborative environments

III.

Creating thoughtful organizational structures and building the capacity of the system

IV. Attentive to individual students and their needs



Reading Assignment

March 30, 2004

Executive Summary pages 5-6

•

Read in 4 chunks

• Understanding How Schools Improved

• Key Finding 1

• Key Finding 2

• Key Finding 3

•

After each chunk, turn to a neighbor and

“Say Something” about what you read.



March 30, 2004

Part 2:

Key Findings —Change and improvement

Understanding the process of how schools changed and improved

These schools worked towards

I.

Understanding their context

II.

Intentionally implementing elements of school improvement

III. Using an approach to school improvement that fits



Change and improvement:

I. Understanding the context

March 30, 2004

These schools were driven to understand how their school improvement efforts were affected by the larger context.

This understanding depended on:

•

•

•

Identifying starting points

Recognizing changes in the environment

Reacting positively and proactively



March 30, 2004


II. Elements of school improvements

Improving these schools required key elements to be put into place. This happened in these schools by:

Slide 23

•

•

•

•

• Building a shared purpose

Shaping a school culture

Reflecting on current situations

Planning and implementing strategies

Re-evaluating



March 30, 2004


III. Approaches to improvement

Schools implemented changes through two approaches – depending on best fit:

•

• Implementing whole school reform

Implementing incremental change



Walk Away With:

March 30, 2004

Understanding the process of how schools changed and improved

These schools worked towards

I.

Understanding their context

II.

Intentionally implementing elements of school improvement

III. Using an approach to school improvement that fits



Conclusion

We need to remember that

•

These schools are not unique in their challenges

•

Staff took responsibility for student learning

•

Every student can learn and deserves to learn

•

The successes at these schools are not inimitable


mspresentation - The Charles A. Dana Center

High-Performing, High-Poverty,

Turnaround Middle Schools

Related documents

Products

Support

mspresentation - The Charles A. Dana Center

High-Performing, High-Poverty,

Turnaround Middle Schools

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib