1. Partnering for Success: Using Research to Improve the Lowest Performing Schools
June 26, 2018
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 1

2. Prioritized for Resources and Targeted Assistance
Framework for Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education (ESE) Accountability and Assistance
Prioritized for Resources and Targeted Assistance
Level 1
Voluntary Engagement With ESE Resources and Assistance
ESE Suggests Resources and Assistance
Level 2
Level 3
Intensive Collaboration and Targeted Assistance
All SEA turnaround assistance efforts are framed by accountability and evidence of effective practices (Turnaround Practices)
Under these frames, ESE staff provide direct targeted assistance and networking/professional development opportunities for low performing schools and their district leaders
Direct liaisons, regional support teams, receivership office.
1 – That Massachusetts has a state law regarding turnaround that provides the state and districts with the ability to change conditions (manty other states do not have such a law, or if they do, it is written in a way that is not conducive to turnaround or is overly reliant on federal law/language)
2 – That Massachusetts is focused on building district capacity, rather than trying to provide support to individual schools (again, a major distinction from other states)
3 – That federal Title I (and SIG) is a tool to implement state law, not the other way around; Title I is not a separate department or funding stream. (This is really the big one, in many state, Title I remains its own office, with a senior level director – and there is constant battles between “title I regulations” and what it takes to engage in turnaround.
Can be applied by large districts with several priority schools, not just SEAs
Level 4
Increasing ESE Assistance
and Accountability
Level 5 2

3. Successful Turnaround in Action Turnaround Practices
Leadership, Shared Responsibility, and Professional Collaboration - The school has established a community of practice through leadership, shared responsibility, and professional collaboration
Intentional Practices for Improving Instruction- The school employs intentional practices for improving teacher-specific and student-responsive instruction
Student-Specific Instruction and Supports to All Students.- The school is able to provide student-specific supports and interventions informed by data and the identification of student-specific needs
School Climate and Culture. The school has established a climate and culture that provide a safe, orderly, and respectful environment for students and a collegial, collaborative, and professional culture among teachers that supports the school’s focus on increasing student achievement

4. SEA Response to 2014 Report
Highlight monitoring:
All turnaround/SIG schools in MA receive an annual 2-day on-site Monitoring Site Visit (MSV)
Conducted by external organization (AIR)
Classroom observations using CLASS observation tool
In 2014, developed a Turnaround Practices & Indicators Rubric to measure schools’ implementation
Rubric was designed with the intention to give schools and districts formative feedback towards turnaround efforts AND to gather measureable data that could be analyzed for patterns and trends in effective practice to share back out with the field
Consistent approach and measures over several years allows for meaningful, valid analysis of data to identify trends

5. Equivalent to one additional year of schooling in both ELA and math
Impact Study Findings
Overall: Students in the SRG schools performed better on the English language arts (ELA) and mathematics state assessments compared with students in comparison schools in Years 1, 2, and 3 of the grant.
found in this study suggest that after one year of implementation students in schools that received SRGs had obtained gains that were equivalent to one additional year of schooling on average, in both ELA and mathematics, compared with the gains that were made by students in comparison schools over the same time period. - studies have shown that student scale scores in Grades 3–8 increase each year by an average of .23–.40 standard deviations in reading and .22–.56 standard deviations in mathematics
Overall: Students in the SRG schools performed better on the ELA and mathematics state assessment compared with students in comparison schools in years 1,2, and 3 of the grant
Reducing the achievement gap: SIG was associated with a decrease in the achievement gap
ELL and non-ELL students in ELA and Math for all three years
Students who did and did not have FRPL status for all three years
Students with special education status and students without a special education status in year 2 and 3 in ELA and only in year 2 in math
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

6. Turnaround Practices and Indicators
1. Leadership, Shared Responsibility, and Professional Collaboration
2. Intentional Practices for Improving Instruction
3. Student-Specific Supports and Instruction to All Students
4. School Climate and Culture
1.1 Use of Autonomy
2.1 Instructional Expectations
3.1 General Academic Interventions and Enrichment
4.1 Schoolwide Behavior Plan
1.2 High Expectations and Positive Regard
2.2 Instructional Schedule
3.2 Teacher Training to Identify Student Needs (Academic and Nonacademic)
4.2 Adult–Student Relationships
1.3 Vision/Theory of Action and Buy-In
2.3 Identifying and Addressing Student Academic Needs
3.3 Determining Schoolwide Student Supports (Academic Interventions and Enrichment)
4.3 Expanded Learning
1.4 Monitoring Implementation and School Progress
2.4 Classroom Observation Data Use
3.4 Multitiered System of Support (Academic and Nonacademic)
4.4 Wraparound Services and External Partners
1.5 Trusting Relationships
2.5 Student Assessment Data Use (for Schoolwide Decision Making)
3.5 Academic Interventions for English Language Learners
4.5 Family and Community Engagement
1.6 Time Use for Professional Development and Collaboration
2.6 Student Assessment Data Use (for Classroom Instruction)
3.6 Academic Interventions for Students With Disabilities
1.7 Communication With Staff
2.7 Structures for Instructional Improvement
1.8 Sustainability
1. Leadership, Shared Responsibility, and Professional Collaboration
2. Intentional Practices for Improving Instruction
3. Student-specific Supports and Instruction to All Students
4. School Climate and Culture
1.1 Use of Autonomy
2.1 Instructional Expectations
3.1 General Academic Interventions and Enrichment
4.1 Schoolwide Behavior Plan
1.2 High Expectations and Positive Regard
2.2 Instructional Schedule
3.2 Teacher Training to Identify Student Needs (Academic and Non-Academic)
4.2 Adult-Student Relationships
1.3 Vision/Theory of Action and Buy-In
2.3 Identifying and Addressing Student Academic Needs
3.3 Determining Schoolwide Student Supports (Academic Interventions and Enrichments)
4.3 Expanded Learning
1.4 Monitoring Implementation and School Progress
2.4 Classroom Observation Data Use
3.4 Multitiered System of Support (Academic and Non-Academic)
4.4 Wraparound Services and External Partners
1.5 Trusting Relationships
2.5 Student Assessment Data Use (for Schoolwide Decision Making)
3.5 Academic Interventions for English Language Learners
4.5 Family and Community Engagement
1.6 Time Use for Professional Development and Collaboration
2.6 Student Assessment Data Use (for Classroom Instruction)
3.6 Academic Interventions for Students with Disabilities
1.7 Communication with Staff
2.7 Structures for Instructional Improvement
1.8 Sustainability
Main Points:
old/new indicators
there is helpful overlap in some cases between the indicators and the SIOR; and
we added the teacher survey to get more data on certain indicators.
In most of those cases, the SIORs and surveys help us to answer questions about frequency that we might not be able to address based on data from interviews/focus groups. Example from the SIOR – to get a sustaining rating for 2.1, schools must demonstrate that high quality instructional expectations are “consistently implemented by most teachers.” Example from teacher survey – to get a sustaining rating on 1.2, schools must demonstrate that “a majority of staff believe leadership, staff, and students have high expectations and demonstrate positive regard.”

7. Lessons Learned in Massachusetts High School Turnaround
Focuses on a comparison and contrast between low-performing and high performing high schools operating in similar contexts and serving similar students. Using Turnaround Practices and Indicators, the report identifies some key strategies that are important features of successful high schools.