State-District Partnerships to Turnaround Low-Performing Schools NGA: Governors Education Policy Advisors (GEPA) Institute, Miami FL April 27, 2010 Gina Ikemoto, PhD
Basis for Comments Cohesive Leadership System Study Study of State Support for Data Driven Decision Making Design of School Monitoring System for Qatar National Evaluation of New Leaders for New Schools Technical assistance provided d to states t & districts i t regarding how to evaluate turnaround initiatives A8517-2 07/09
Reasons for School Failure Vary Widely.. A8517-3 07/09
School Improvement Policies i are Incoherent Irrelevant: Prescribed practices can lack relevance to needs Inconsistent/ competing: Schools can receive competing messages from states, districts, technical assistance providers & governing boards Fragmented: High quality educators can lack the conditions needed to enact effective practices A8517-4 07/09
Schools are Hindered by Problems Caused by the Broader Policy Context Inability to control staffing Removing staff Hiring staff Lack of autonomy over scheduling, allocating resources, using of professional development time Lack of access to professional development, tools, & technical assistance Lack of political support for tough decisions A8517-5 07/09
States Should Improve Conditions & Cohesion Cohesive Leadership System Study Might Provide Insights on How Wallace Hypothesis: When states and districts work together to build cohesion among school leadership policies, they can improve the leadership conditions and leadership effectiveness RAND Study examined merit of hypothesis & state role in 10 states, 17 districts A8517-6 07/09
What is a Cohesive Leadership System? Leadership policy areas: standards, licensure, in-service,,p pre-service, evaluations, conditions Cohesion: comprehensiveness & alignment Policy actors: state government, districts, higher education, associations, licensure boards, leadership academies, etc. States as leaders Districts as leaders A8517-7 07/09
RAND Findings Promising approach 6 states made progress In building cohesion DE, IA & KY had most-advanced CLSs Conditions matter States took lead in improving cohesion A8517-8 07/09
Example: Delaware 52 Member Consortium Built awareness & understanding Orientation of inclusivity & mutual respect Set priorities & instigated actions of members Task forces provided recommendations in 5 areas Lead organization: Delaware Association for School Leadership (DASL) with strong leader Connecting to other reforms A8517-9 07/09
Recommendations for State Role in School Turnaround: Improve Conditions and Coherence Conditions Balance accountability with flexibility to meet needs of individual schools Make lines of accountability & authority clear Build autonomy for strong leaders Create pipeline of new teachers/leaders Coherence Build a network of policymakers Identify a coordinating agency with strong leadership Conduct internal policy audit A8517-10 07/09
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/mg885/ Gina Ikemoto: ginas@rand.org A8517-11 07/09
We Conducted Cross-Case Analyses on Ten Purposively Sampled Sites State Delaware Georgia Illinois Iowa Kentucky Massachusetts Missouri Oregon Indiana Rhode Island School District Appoquinimink Christina Indian River Atlanta Chicago Springfield Davenport Clear Creek Amana Waterloo Jefferson County Boston Springfield St. Louis Eugene Portland Ft. Wayne Providence A8517-12 07/09
What Might be the Policy Areas Related to Improving Low-Performing Schools? Identifying schools for turnaround Providing diagnostic & planning tools & processes Developing pipeline of leaders & teachers for turnaround schools Specifying effective school improvement practices menu of approved interventions/ strategies school review criteria Providing access to technical assistance & professional development Monitoring performance A8517-13 07/09