EvalScho Implem   SubmitMark CoOffice ofMichigan    Submit Juan CarJohn RicJerry HipJian Li   January  

uationool Im

mentation 

tted to: oscarella f Education n Departme

tted by:   

rlos Bojorque pps 

y 2012 

n of Mprove

Trends in 

Improvemennt of Educat

ez 

Michigaement 

the First Y

nt & Innovattion 

an’s 10Grant

Year  

tion 

003(g)ts  

 

 

Executive

IntroductBackgrMichig

DescOvervie

The 

MethodoImplemData Co

InterBenc

Data A

Findings ‐Summa

DistrStaffPerfProfMon

DetaileGoveStaffPerfProfMonSucc

Next Step

Reference

Appendic

e Summary ...

tion and Backound on Schoan’s School Imcription of Miew of the EvaCurrent Repo

logy .............mentation Indollection ......rviews with Dchmarking Tonalysis..........

‐ SIG Implemeary of the Finrict and Schooff Recruitmentformance Evafessional Devenitoring by Dised Discussion ernance and ff Recruitmentformance Evafessional Devenitoring by Discesses and Ob

ps .................

es .................

ces ................

T

....................

kground ........ool Improvemmprovement ichigan’s 2010aluation of Mort .................

....................dicators and In.....................District and Scools ....................................

entation in Ydings ............ol Governanct and Selectioluation, Incenelopment andstricts and Scof the FindinLeadership ...t and Selectioluation, Incenelopment andstricts and Scbstacles in the

....................

....................

....................

Table o

....................

....................ment Grants ..Grants .........0 SIG Granteeichigan’s SIGs.....................

....................nterview Prot.....................chool Staff ...............................................

ear One ............................ce and Leaderon ..................ntives, and Std Coaching ....chools ............gs ......................................on ..................ntives, and Std Coaching ....chools ............e First Year of

....................

....................

....................

of Cont

....................

................................................................es ..................s .........................................

....................tocols ..................................................................................................

..........................................rship ...................................taff Removal ...........................................................................................................taff Removal ...........................................f SIG Impleme

....................

....................

....................

tents

....................

.............................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................entation .......

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

......................

......................................................................................

....................

......................

......................................................................................

....................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

....................

....................

....................

...... 1 

...... 3 ....... 3 ....... 6 ....... 6 ....... 9 ..... 10 

.... 11 ..... 11 ..... 12 ..... 12 ..... 14 ..... 15 

.... 16 ..... 16 ..... 16 ..... 17 ..... 17 ..... 18 ..... 18 ..... 19 ..... 19 ..... 23 ..... 26 ..... 28 ..... 34 ..... 38 

.... 41 

.... 43 

.... 44 

Exhibit 1Exhibit 2Exhibit 3Exhibit 4Exhibit 5Exhibit 6Exhibit 7Exhibit 8Exhibit 9..............Exhibit 1..............Exhibit 1Exhibit 1Exhibit 1Exhibit 1 

: SIG Model : SIG School : SIG School : School Dist: Role of Yea: Principal R: Specificity : Strategies : Level of Te...................0: Level of P...................1: Comparis2: Level of T3: Level Prin4: Comparis

RequiremenInformationInformationtribution forar One Interveplacementof CompeteInvolved in Racher Profe...................Principal Prof...................on—Levels oTeacher Coacncipal Coachon—Level o

List onts ...............n Sheet 1 .....n Sheet 2 .....r Different SIviewees in S by Intervenncies by InteRemoving Tessional Deve....................fessional De....................of Teacher aching by Inteing by Intervof Teacher an

f Exhib............................................................IG Models ...SIG Schools antion Model ervention Meachers .......elopment by....................evelopment b....................and Principaervention Mvention Modnd Principal 

bits ................................................................................and Districtsand School 

Model and Sc....................y Interventio....................by Intervent....................l Professionaodel and Scdel and SchoCoaching ....

....................

....................

....................

....................s ...................Level ...........chool Level.......................on Model an....................tion Model a....................al Developmhool Level ...ool Level ..........................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................d School Lev....................and School L....................ment .........................................................................

...... 5 

...... 7 

...... 8 

...... 9 

.... 12 

.... 24 

.... 25 

.... 28 vel .... 30 Level.... 31 .... 32 .... 32 .... 33 .... 34 

This report s18 districts afall 2010. Thdistricts and staff; professsystems; faci

Data were coinvolved witof SIG schomonitors. Thdeveloped aninterviews w(turnaround,benchmarkin

A number o

Governa

• SIG the eand i

• Chanlimit

• All smostcons

Recruitm

• Over

• In gescreeturna(or p

Perform

• Distrsysteteachto th

summarizes iand 28 schoohis phase of t

schools wersional develoilitative admi

ollected throth SIG plannols. The intehe interview nd then revis

were examine, transformatng tool were

f trends were

ance and Lea

schools madend of the firincreases in s

nges in goverted compared

chools report commonly straints from

ment and Staf

rall, SIG sch

eneral, districening staff foaround schooplanned to us

mance Evaluat

ricts and schems and, for hers could behe principal a

Eximplementat

ols in Michigathe evaluatione expected to

opment and tinistration; le

ugh semi-strning and implerview data wdata were co

sed based ond for themestion) and schexamined du

e found acro

adership

de appreciablrst year. The shared or dis

rnance and led to the chan

rted they werin the areas odistricts in th

ffing

ools met all t

cts reported tor SIG schoools) could idese) for hiring

tion, Incentiv

ools were in the most pare removed. Aand teachers.

xecutivtion trends foan that were n was guidedo implementtraining; coaceadership; sys

ructured teleplementation,

were supplemoded throughn the level of s and generalhool level (eleuring analysis

ss the SIG d

le modificatiomost commo

stributed lead

eadership at tnges in gover

re allowed soof staff reasshe areas of b

the fundame

that they freqols. Only aboentify highly in the first y

ves, and Staf

the process rt, had not yeAbout half of

Page 1

ve Sumor the first yeawarded 100

d by a subset t during the fching; perforstem interven

phone interviincluding di

mented with bh an iterative agreement b

lizations, thenementary, mis and synthes

districts and s

ons to both gon modificat

dership.

the district lenance and le

ome degree osignment andbudgeting and

ntal staffing

quently reliedout a fifth of

specific critiyear.

ff Removal

of developinet changed thf the schools

mmaryear of WestE03(g) School of SIG impl

first year, inclrmance evaluntions; and a

views with 51strict-level SI

benchmarkinprocess whe

between diffen analyzed aniddle and higsis of the int

schools in the

governance stions were ch

evel during theadership at s

of freedom and scheduling.d curricula se

requirement

d on their staall SIG schoical skills or c

ng new staff phe conditionsmade perfor

y Ed’s three-yea

Improvemenlementation iluding: recru

uation; decisioassessment.

individuals wIG administr

ng tools compereby an initierent coders. nd synthesize

gh). Supplemerview data.

e following d

structures anhanges to sch

he first year wschools.

nd flexibility Principals feelection.

ts of SIG in t

andard hiringools (and noncompetencie

performances under whicrmance incen

ar evaluation nt Grants (SIindicators th

uiting and selon support d

who were herators and prpleted by SIGial set of codThe coded ed by SIG m

mental data fro

domains:

d leadership hool schedule

were much m

by districts, elt the most

the first year.

g processes wne of the es that they u

e evaluation ch principals ntives availab

of the IGs) in

hat SIG ecting

data

eavily rincipals G es were

model om the

by es

more

.

when

sed

and ble

Professio

• The consprincrecei

Monitori

• The altern

• The with

• Moncompcomm

Differing

• Turn

• Princfrom

• Whescho

• Staffand c

• Princprimof im

There are seabout implemskills for hiricertain aspec

onal Develop

teachers at asiderable breacipals receiveived by teach

ing

majority of snative bench

majority of ssome teache

nitoring by diponents, sucmunities. Fiv

g Trends bet

naround scho

cipals of turnm taking staff

en incentives ools.

f at transformcoaching tha

cipals at turnmary indicatormplementatio

veral notewomentation thing staff, varicts of SIG in

pment and C

a majority of adth and freqed covered fehers.

schools monihmarks. A mi

schools had ters administe

istricts tendedch as professive districts re

tween Turnar

ools did not f

naround schof performanc

were availab

mation schooan staff at tur

naround schor of SIG progon indicators

orthy trends ihat is plannediation in the

n turnaround

Coaching

schools recequency, althoewer domain

itored studeninority of sch

teachers admering them m

d to focus onional developeported little

round and T

fill all non-te

ools stated the into consid

ble to princip

ols received brnaround sch

ools appearedgress while pto monitor S

in these findid for the secosupport thatschools.

Page 2

ived professiough professins and was so

nt learning byhools used on

minister benchmore frequent

n faithful imppment activitor no monit

ransformatio

eaching positi

hat their distrderation durin

pals, they wer

broader and mhools.

d to focus maprincipals at tSIG progress

ings that willond year, suct districts pro

ional developional develop

omewhat less

y using the snly the latter

hmark assesstly.

plementationties and proftoring.

on Schools

ions created

rict’s hiring rng the hiring

re more likely

more frequen

ainly on studtransformatios.

l inform the ch as unarticuovide to SIGs

pment and copment and cos frequent co

tate assessm.

sments at lea

n of specific fessional learn

specifically f

requirements g process.

y to be at tran

nt profession

dent performon schools st

more extensulated compes, and lagging

oaching of oaching that mpared to th

ents as well a

ast three time

SIG ning

for the SIG.

prevented th

nsformation

nal developm

mance as the tressed a vari

ive data colleetencies and g implement

hat

as

es,

hem

ment

iety

ection critical

tation of

This report sImprovementhat receivedfor the Michimplementatthrough semplanning andprovide MDevaluation teThe full threnumber of d

In this first rMichigan’s Smethod and summarize tgreater detaion the imple

BACKGROU

SIGs are aut1965. SIGs a(SEAs) whodistributing progress (AYmillion in 20the AmericaGovernmenthey are comschools. SEAEligible scho

Tier I – lowest-apercent.

1 Although thelatter only.

2 The focus offall 2010. Addievaluation.

Insummarizes tnt Grants (SId SIG funds. higan Departmtion indicator

mi-structured d implementa

DE with an ineam to gatheree-year evaluadata sources)

report, we prSIGs in 2010instruments

the findings fl. In the final

ementation tr

UND ON SC

thorized undare awarded b, in turn, awafunds to struYP) and exit 007 to $546 mn Recovery at Accountabi

mmitted to usAs may awardools in 2010 n

Title I schoochieving fiveElementary

e 1003(a) and 10

f the evaluation itional schools h

ntrodutrends from IGs)1, 2 usingThe finding

ment of Edurs on which ptelephone ination. The fir

ndependent sr perspectiveation will incof implemen

rovide a brief, and a summused for col

for each impll section, we rends found

CHOOL IMP

er Title I, Seby the U.S. Dard subgrantsuggling schoofrom improv

million in 200and Reinvestility Office, 2sing these fund an LEA upneeded to m

ols in improve percent in tschools coul

003(g) SIGs are

and the currenhave received S

uction the first year

g informations are from th

ucation (MDEprogress was

nterviews witrst phase of enapshot of im

e and contextclude a more ntation, prog

f overview ofmary of our ellecting and alementation discuss nextin the first ye

PROVEMEN

ction 1003(gDepartment os to local eduols. The goal vement statu09. Howevertment Act (A2011). In ordnds to raise sp to $2,000,0

meet the requi

vement, correthe state, or (ld also be elig

e distinct and se

nt report is the 2SIG awards sinc

Page 3

and Br of implemen collected prhe first phaseE). The first s expected duh the individevaluation damplementatit around key comprehens

gram impact,

f SIGs, backgevaluation apanalyzing datindicator andt steps for thear.

NT GRANTS

g) of the Elemof Educationucational agenis to enable

us. Regular apr, in 2009, SIG

ARRA), whichder to receivestudent achie00 per year firements for

ective action(2) high schogible if they w

eparate funding

28 schools in Mce then; howeve

Backgrntation of Mrimarily frome of WestEd’phase was gu

uring the firsduals who weata collectionon progress

y elements of sive examinaand the relat

ground inforpproach. Nexta on SIG imd follow with

he SIG evalua

S   

mentary and n (USED) to ncies (LEAs)struggling sc

ppropriationsG funding wh added $3 be a subgrant, evement in thfor each qualone of three

n, or restructuools with a grwere achievin

g streams, the u

Michigan that reer, they are out

round Michigan’s 100m staff in dist’s three-year

guided by a sust year. Data ere most invon had two broin year one,

f early implemtion (both intionship betw

rmation on thxt, we provid

mplementationh a discussionation in the s

Secondary E state educat). LEAs are t

chools to mas for SIGs in

was greatly subillion for SIGLEAs must

heir persistenlified school e tiers:

uring that weraduation rateng at the sam

use of “SIG” in

eceived 1003(g)tside the scope

 03(g) Schooltricts and schevaluation oubset of SIGwere collecteolved with SIoad purposeand 2) allow

mentation of n terms of scoween the two

he recipientsde information. Then we n of the findsecond year, b

Education Actional agenciethen responske adequate

ncreased fromupplemented Gs (U.S. demonstrate

ntly lowest acin the distric

ere (1) the e under 60

me rates as th

n this report ref

) SIG funds begof the current

l hools f SIGs

G ed IG s: 1) the

f SIGs. ope and o.

s of on on the

ings in based

ct of es sible for yearly

m $125 through

e that chieving ct.

he

fers to the

ginning in

persistenpercent o

Tier II –among thunder 60highest-apercent aproficien

Tier IIIcriteria fnot madcould be

Eligible Tiermodels: restarequired as wmodels.

3 Tier III sites

ntly lowest acof schools ba

– Secondary he five perce0 percent. Secachieving schand had not ncy.

– Title I schfor Tier I. Ade AYP for tw

e classified as

r I and Tier Iart, school clwell as permi

were only eligib

chieving schoased on prof

schools that ent lowest-accondary schohool identifiemade AYP f

hools in imprdditionally, Two years or ws Tier III3.

I schools thalosure, transfissible activiti

ble for SIG pro

ools and had ficiency.

were eligiblechieving secoools were alsed as persistefor two years

rovement, coTitle I schoolswere in the lo

at received fuformation, ories. Exhibit 1

ogram funds aft

Page 4

not made AY

e for but didndary schoolo eligible if t

ently low-achs or were in t

orrective actios that did notowest 20 perc

unding were r turnaround1 outlines the

ter all Tier I and

AYP for two y

not receive Tls in the state

they were achhieving, or hathe lowest 20

on, or restruct meet the crcent of schoo

required to id. Each modee required ac

d Tier II schoo

years or were

Title I fundse, or (2) had hieving no hiad a graduatio0 percent of s

cturing that driteria for Tieols based on

implement onel includes a ctivities for ea

ols within the di

e in the lowe

, and (1) wera graduationigher than thon rate underschools based

did not meeter I or II andproficiency

ne of four SIspecific set oach of the fo

istrict were serv

st 20

re n rate he r 60 d on

t the d had

IG of our

ved.

Model Restart 

Closure 

Transformatio

Turnaround 

 

During the fout of over 1SIG grants wschools (21 pselected the (20 percent).(Hurlburt, L

4 These percenSIG. (http://w

• C• U

o• E• C• E

on  • R• U

s• R• P

s• Im• U

v• P• P• P• P• R

e• R

im• U• S• Im• P

s• A• U

v• P• P• P

first school y15,000 eligiblwere awardedpercents), antransformati. Relatively fe

Le Floch, The

ntages do not acwww2.ed.gov/p

Ex

Convert or closUse a rigorous rorganization orEnroll any prevClose the schooEnroll students Replace the schUse a rigorous, tudent growthReward staff wProvide ongointaff can succesmplement a syUse data to idevertically and wPromote the coProvide increasProvide mechanProvide operatiReceive ongoinexternal partneReplace the schmplement chaUse locally adoScreen and re‐hmplement a syProvide professuccessfully impAdopt a new goUse data to idevertically and wPromote the coProvide increasProvide social‐e

year of SIG fule schools in d to high schnd non-standaion model (7few schools cerriault, & Co

ccount for Rho

programs/sif/su

xhibit 1: SIG

e and reopen treview processr a education mious student wol from the scho

hool principaltransparent, a

h and is designeho positively ag professional ssfully implemeystem of rewarntify and implewith state acadontinuous use osed learning timnisms for famiional flexibilityg, intensive teer hool principal ange pted competehire no more thystem of rewarsional developmplement reformovernance struntify and implewith state acadontinuous use osed learning timemotional and 

unding that w49 states and

hools (48 percard schools (3 percent) w

chose the restole, 2011).4

ode Island becauummary2010/ri

Page 5

G Model ReqRequireme

the school as as to select a chmanagement owho wishes to a

ool in other sch

and equitable eed with teacheaffect student odevelopment ent reform strards and incentiement a reseaemic standardof student datame ly and commuy to fully implechnical assista

and provide th

ncies to measuhan 50% of therds and incentiment aligned wm strategies ucture for addeement a reseaemic standardof student datame community‐or

was supplemd Washingtocent) followe(7 percent). A

with the turnatart or closur

use of continueisigcoltr.pdf ; ac

quirementsentsa charter schooharter school organization to attend the sch

hools in the dis

evaluation syster and principaoutcomes and aligned with tategies ves to recruit arch‐based instds a to inform an

nity engagemement changence and suppo

e principal wit

ure staff effecte current staffves to recruit awith the instru

ed flexibility anrch‐based instds a to inform an

riented service

mented with Aon, D.C. wereed by elemenA majority ofaround modere models (fo

ed delays in awaccessed on Dec

ol operator, chartoperate the scool 

strict that are h

tem that takesal input remove thosehe instructiona

and retain effetructional prog

d differentiate

ent 

ort from the LE

th the operatio

tiveness 

and retain effeuctional progra

nd greater accotructional prog

d differentiate

es and support

ARRA funds e awarded SI

ntary schools f the Tier I ael being the sour and two p

ards to the statecember 12, 201

er managemenchool 

higher‐achievin

s into account 

e who do not al program so 

ective staff gram aligned 

e instruction 

EA, SEA or an 

onal flexibility t

ective staff m so staff can 

ountability gram aligned 

e instruction 

ts 

(i.e., 2010-11IGs. The plur(24 percent)

and Tier II scecond most percent resp

e’s LEAs for th11).

nt 

ng 

to 

1), 1,228 rality of ), middle chools selected ectively)

he 2010-11

MICHIGAN

In 2010, MicA portion ofwere 228 Tiein 2010, 108testing data f2011).

Eighty-four applications.Assessment years. MDE analysis of scthe part of cschools wereuse interim aand EXPLO

DESCRIPTI

MDE awardExhibits 2 anexcept for thCity School School Distrfour other Scommunitieswith an averschools selec16 high schoelementary stransformati

5 The remaindare not include

N’S SCHOOL

chigan receivf these fundser I, II, and I of which wefrom the 200

of the eligibl. First, MDEProgram (Malso reviewe

chool and stuommunity ste expected toassessments t

ORE were req

ON OF MIC

ded funds to nd 3. The schhree urban diDistrict withrict with two IG schools ins, respectivelrage grant percted the tranools, seven mschools are inion or turnar

er of the $115 m

ed in the curren

L IMPROVE

ved the sevens, $86.25 millIII schools inere Tier I and07-2008 and

le schools apE reviewed stuMEAP) and M

ed each schooudent needs. takeholders, o set rigorousto provide required for ass

CHIGAN’S 2

28 of the 84 hools are locistricts with m

h six schools,schools. In a

n other urbaly. Individualr school of $sformation m

middle schooln a single distound model

million was roll

nt evaluation.

EMENT GRA

nth-largest ARlion, was avain Michigan thd II schools. 2008-2009 sc

pplied for SIGudent academ

Michigan Merol’s ComprehMichigan reincluding pars, achievable egular achievsessment of

2010 SIG G

applicants incated in 18 scmultiple scho Grand Rapiaddition to thn areas, and l grants range

$3 million, to model while nls, four elemetrict. The numcan be foun

led into a subse

Page 6

ANTS  

RRA-supplemilable for immhat were eligiThese schoochool years (

G funds. MDmic performarit Examinatihensive Needequired that arents, unionsgoals to incr

vement progrcollege readi

GRANTEES 

n 2010. The cchool districtools that werids Public Schhe 13 SIG scsix and five Sed in size frobe expended

nine opted foentary schoomber of schod in Exhibit

equent round o

mented SIG mediate granible to apply ols were deem(Hurlburt, Le

DE used a varance on the Mon (MME) inds Assessmeapplicants subs, and the locrease academress reports. Finess.

 

characteristicts. Each distrre awarded SIhools with fichools in theSIG schools

om approximd over three or the turnar

ols, and one Kools at each l4.

of SIGs awarded

grant in the nt awards (Sc

for the SIG med eligible be Floch, Ther

riety of factoMichigan Edn the three pnt tool, or sibmit evidenccal school bo

mic performanFor high sch

cs of these scrict has a singIGs. These inive schools, aese three urba

located in sumately $605,00

years. Ninetround modelK-12 charter level that ado

d to additional

nation, $115cott, 2011).5 T

grants in Mibased on therriault, & Co

ors in reviewiducational preceding acaimilar instrumce of engagemoard. The selence each yea

hools, ACT’s

chools appeagle SIG schonclude the Dand Saginaw an districts, tuburban and 00 to $4.9 meen of the SI. Michigan seschool. All o

opted either

schools in 2011

5 million. There ichigan eir state ole,

ing

ademic ments or ment on ected

ar, and to PLAN

ar in ol

Detroit City

there are rural

million, IG elected of the the

1, which

AdriBuchBue

Detr

FitzgGod

Gran

GranMt. Mt. Oak Rom

Sagi

SchoSpriVan WalWes

  1 A

District Na

an City School Disthanan Community na Vista School Dis

roit City School Dis

gerald Public Schoofrey‐Lee Public Sch

nd Rapids Public Sc

nt Public School DiClemens CommunMorris ConsolidatePark City School D

mulus Community S

naw City School Di

ool District of the Cngport Public SchoDyke Public Schoodron Area Schools ston Preparatory A

total of 28 schools

ame 

trict  ASchools  Bstrict  B

trict 

FNWDLPS

ols  Fhools  L

chools  

OUAGW

strict  Gity School Dist.  Med Schools  EDistrict  OSchools  R

istrict  AT

City of Inkster  Iools  Sols  L

WAcademy  W

(9 turnaround and

E

Sch

Adrian High SchoolBuchanan High SchBuena Vista High SFarwell Middle SchNolan Elementary SWhite Elementary Dixon Educational Lessenger ElementPhoenix ElementarSouthwestern HighFitzgerald Senior HLee High SchoolOttawa Hills High SUnion High SchoolAlger Middle SchooGerald R. Ford MidWestwood Middle Grant High SchoolMount Clemens HiE.A. Johnson MemOak Park High SchoRomulus Middle ScArthur Hill High SchThompson Middle Inkster High SchooSpringport High ScLincoln High SchooWaldron Middle ScWeston Preparator

19 transformation s

Exhibit 2: SIG S

ool Name 

lhoolchoolhoolSchoolSchoolLearning Academytary‐Middle Schoolryh Schooligh School

School

olddle SchoolSchool

gh Schoolorial H.S.oolchoolhoolSchoollhoololchoolry Academy

schools). 

Page 7

School Informat

Model Se

TransformTransformTransformTurnarouTransformTransform

y (f/k/a )  Turnarou

TurnarouTurnarouTransformTransformTransformTransformTurnarouTurnarouTurnarouTransformTransformTransformTurnarouTransformTransformTransformTurnarouTransformTransformTransformTransform

tion Sheet 1

elected1  Tier 

mation  2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $und 2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $

und  1  $

und 1 $und 1 $mation  2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $und 2 $und 2 $und 2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $und 2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $und 2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $mation  2 $

TOTAL: $AVERAGE: $

TOTAL SIG I Allocation  

$2,750,221.00 $1,947,250.00 $2,496,572.00 $1,355,741.00 $2,734,961.00 $2,764,192.00 

$3,340,988.00  

$1,824,980.00 $3,039,952.00 $1,014,461.00 $2,167,506.00 $5,349,927.00 $5,349,927.00 $4,918,511.00 $4,166,789.00 $4,918,511.00 $1,719,779.00 $1,556,272.00 $1,562,309.00 $4,234,240.00 $5,328,664.00 $4,392,512.00 $3,382,134.00 $5,447,000.00 $1,596,160.00 $1,037,843.00 $605,500.00 $1,756,080.00 $82,758,982.00$2,955,677.93 

 Level   gHigh 9High 9High 9Middle 5Elementary KElementary P

Elementary  K

Elementary KHigh 9High 9High 9High 9High 9Middle 6Middle 6Middle 6High 9High 9High 9High 9Middle 7High 9Middle 6High 9High 9High 9Middle 6Non‐standard K

Low grade 

High Grade 

9 129 129 125 8 K 8PK 6

K  8 

K 89 129 129 129 129 126 8 6  8 6  8 9  12 9  12 9  12 9  12 7  8 9  12 6  8 9  12 9  12 9  12 6  8 K  12 

AdriBuchBue

Detr

FitzgGod

Gran

GranMt. Mt. Oak Rom

Sagi

SchoSpriVan WalWes

 1A towhit

District Na

an City School Disthanan Community na Vista School Dis

roit City School Dis

gerald Public Schoofrey‐Lee Public Sch

nd Rapids Public Sc

nt Public School DiClemens CommunMorris ConsolidatePark City School D

mulus Community S

naw City School Di

ool District of the Cngport Public SchoDyke Public Schoodron Area Schools ston Preparatory A

otal of 28 schools (9te students in 2009-

ame 

trict  ASchools  Bstrict  B

trict  

FNWDAEPS

ols  Fhools  L

chools  

OUAGW

strict  Gity School Dist.  Med Schools  EDistrict  OSchools  R

istrict  AT

City of Inkster  Iools  Sols  L

WAcademy  W

9 turnaround and 110. 

E

School N

Adrian High SchoolBuchanan High SchBuena Vista High SFarwell Middle SchNolan Elementary SWhite Elementary Dixon Educational Academy (f/k/a LesElementary‐MiddlePhoenix ElementarSouthwestern HighFitzgerald Senior HLee High SchoolOttawa Hills High SUnion High SchoolAlger Middle SchooGerald R. Ford MidWestwood Middle Grant High SchoolMount Clemens HiE.A. Johnson MemOak Park High SchoRomulus Middle ScArthur Hill High SchThompson Middle Inkster High SchooSpringport High ScLincoln High SchooWaldron Middle ScWeston Preparator

9 transformation sc

Exhibit 3: SIG S

ame  M

l Thool Tchool Thool TSchool TSchool TLearning ssenger e School) 

T

ry Th School Tigh School T

TSchool T

Tol Tddle School TSchool T

Tgh School Torial H.S. Tool Tchool Thool TSchool Tl Thool Tol Tchool Try Academy T

chools); 2Enrollmen

Page 8

School Informat

Model Selected1 

ransformationransformationransformationurnaroundransformationransformation

urnaround 

urnaroundurnaroundransformationransformationransformationransformationurnaroundurnaroundurnaroundransformationransformationransformationurnaroundransformationransformationransformationurnaroundransformationransformationransformationransformation

TOAVERA

nt in 2010 – 11; 3 pe

tion Sheet 2 

Tier   TOTAL SAllocatio

2 $2,750,2212 $1,947,2502 $2,496,5722 $1,355,7412 $2,734,9612 $2,764,192

1  $3,340,988

1 $1,824,9801 $3,039,9522 $1,014,4612 $2,167,5062 $5,349,9272 $5,349,9272 $4,918,5112 $4,166,7892 $4,918,5112 $1,719,7792 $1,556,2722 $1,562,3092 $4,234,2402 $5,328,6642 $4,392,5122 $3,382,1342 $5,447,0002 $1,596,1602 $1,037,8432 $605,500.02 $1,756,080

OTAL:  $82,758,98AGE:  $2,955,677

ercent free-and redu

SIG I on    Locale

1.00  Urban frin0.00  Urban frin2.00  Rural 1.00  Central ci1.00  Central ci2.00  Central ci

8.00    Central ci

0.00  Central Ci2.00  Central ci1.00  Central ci6.00  Central ci7.00  Central ci7.00  Central ci1.00  Central ci9.00  Central ci1.00  Central ci9.00  Rural 2.00  Urban frin9.00  Rural 0.00  Urban frin4.00  Urban frin2.00  Central ci4.00  Central ci0.00  Urban frin0.00  Rural 3.00  Central ci00  Rural 0.00  Central ci82.007.93 

uced-price lunch elig

e   Enroll‐ment2   FR

nge  1,111  50nge  500  37

359  87ty  513  90ty  626  94ty  586  91

ty   400   86

ity  652  98ty  653  46ty  1,035  66ty  342  86ty  833  87ty  824  86ty  473  92ty  342  96ty  329  94

637  41nge  534  82

765  63nge  1,338  59nge  553  70ty  1,408  76ty  948  90nge  1,592  65

315  50ty  889  65

73  70ty  471  79

AVERAGE: 75

gible in 2009-10; 4 p

% RPL3 

% non‐white4  

0.81 32.127.68 10.797.11 98.970.00 99.354.06 99.761.92 83.72

6.86  98.63 

8.69 73.646.83 83.996.88 52.426.48 80.567.84 95.646.32 75.092.54 93.886.05 96.714.62 79.031.02 18.422.39 73.423.55 25.079.10 96.810.62 65.516.84 85.280.26 81.605.59 99.290.45 4.155.82 50.880.51 2.569.56 99.515.37 69.89

percent non-

All 28 schprice luncpercent. Tstudents rschools te

 EleMiHigK‐1Tot

OVERVI

In July 20awarded isummativinterventiAcross thon-site obdistricts aaddition, funds in oeffectivenas well ascontribut

The three

(1) H

(2) D

(3) Hw

Data fromimplemenexample, district stother stafgrants in in each o

hools had relches. The ranThe racial coranging fromended to hav

E

ementary ddle gh 12 Charter  tal 

EW OF THE

011, MDE coin 2010. Theve in order toions, and to

he three yearsbservations, iand schools rthe evaluatioorder to estimness of each s how variousting to the ov

e primary res

How are the S

Does receipt o

How is implemwithin those m

m a number ont and coordduring each

taff at the 18 ff at the 28 scyears 2 and 3f the SIG sch

latively high pnge was from

omposition om 3 percent tove lowest per

Exhibit 4: ScTra

E EVALUAT

ontracted wite evaluation, bo provide infdetermine ths, the evaluatinterviews, sureceiving SIGon is using a mate the impcomponent os componentverall success

search questio

SIGs implem

of SIG fundi

mentation ofmodels) relat

of sources ardinate the com

year of SIG districts respchools receiv3, we will colhools. In add

percentages m 38 to 99 pef the studento nearly 100 rcentages of n

chool Distribansformation

23 13 119

TION OF M

th WestEd tobeing conduformation thahe effectivenetion combineurveys, and r

G funding, asmatched-com

pact of the SIof the turnarts of the turns of the scho

ons across th

mented at the

ing have an im

f the two SIGed to improv

re being usedmponents of implementat

ponsible for aving SIG funllect implemedition, to pro

Page 9

of students wercent of the t bodies variepercent, withnon-white st

bution for DTu

ICHIGAN’S

o conduct ancted over thrat can be useess of the traes quantitativrelevant studs well as in-demparison groIG. By the enround and tranaround and ols.

he three-year

district and

mpact on ou

G interventiovement in ou

d to determinf the transfortion, we will assisting with

nds. Once schentation data

ovide more in

who were eligstudent pop

ed, with the ph an average tudents at the

Different SIGurnaround

24 3 09

S SIGS  

n independenree years, is bed to improvansformationve and qualitadent- and schepth case stuoup of schoond of the thransformationtransformati

r evaluation a

school levels

utcomes for l

on models (inutcomes for S

ne how distrirmation and tconduct semh reform effohools are fura through a wn-depth infor

gible for freeulation, withproportion oof 70 percen

eir schools.

G Models T

nt evaluation both formativ

ve and enhancn and turnaroative approac

hool-level outudies of six Sols that did nree-year evalun models willion models a

are:

s?

low-performi

ncluding specSIG schools?

icts and schoturnaround m

mi-structuredorts, and the rther along imweb-based surmation abou

e- and reduceh an average oof non-white nt. Rural SIG

Total 4 7 16 1 28 

of the 28 SIGve and ce the SIG

ound models.ches integrattcomes for al

SIG schools. ot receive SIuation, the l be documenare likely

ing schools?

cific strategie?

ools actually models. For interviews oprincipals an

mplementing urvey of teachut the

ed-of 75

G

Gs

. ting ll In

IG

nted,

es

of nd their

hers

implemen28 schoolmost prothe least pstudies at

THE  CUR

The curreschool levelimplemenschool yeaddress thacademicelementarfor the prschool’s pMEAP scnot availaimprovemthey will n

The findilevel SIGspecialistswith SIGsupplemecan be foSIG recipprofessioimplementhe aggre(turnarouthese sub

6 At this timcompose oimpacts bas

ntation of thels during yeagress on SIGprogress on it these six sch

RRENT REP

ent report adls? Specificallnted their traear). Subsequhe second an outcomes atry and middlrevious acadeprogress on scores for the able to analyzment in outconot be discus

ings for this fG administrato

s (i.e., the priG administrati

ented with daound in the Mpients in theirnal developmnting the varigate across a

und, transformbgroups of sc

me, MME scornly a portion osed on both MM

e SIG modelar two. DurinG implementaimplementatihools.

PORT  

ddresses the fly, this interimansformationuent reports wnd third reseat SIG schoolle school studemic year. Asstandardized 2010-2011 a

ze for this intomes cannotssed in this r

first interim rors, principalimary individion in the firsata obtained

Methodology r first year as

ment and coaious compon

all districts anmation) and chools were d

es for high schf the study samME and MEAP

ls and their cng year three,ation and stuion and/or d

first researchm report focun and turnarowill update fiarch questionls because ofdents. The Ms a consequestate assessm

academic yeaterim report.t be addressereport.6

report are dels of SIG schdual at each sst year of impfrom the statsection. Find

s well as the naching activitnents of schond schools, aby school lev

detected.

ool are availablmple, the impactP scores will be

Page 10

components, , we will idenudent outcomdeclines on st

question: Huses on how

ound strategieindings relatens as well. Thf Michigan’s c

MEAP is admence, an assesments cannotars (the first y. Likewise, asd without th

erived from thools and (toschool who wplementationte monitors. dings focus onature of theties. The repoool improvems well as disavel (elementa

le for the 17 SIGt of the SIG can

e included in the

we will condntify three schmes, and thretudent outco

How are the SIGw the 18 distri

es during theed to the firsthis interim recycle for asse

ministered eacssment of ant be ascertainyear that the ssociations b

he 2010-11 st

the analysis oo a lesser extewas responsibn). Where apDetails on d

on the naturee activities thort also focument efforts. aggregated byary, middle, h

G high schoolsnnot be estimae next report.

duct a site vishools that ha

ee schools thaomes. We wil

Gs implementedicts and 28 sce first grant yt research queport does noessing achievch fall to asse

ny given elemned until the SIG was imp

between specitudent outcom

of interviews ent) school-leble for assistplicable, thes

data collectioe of staffing

hat were impluses on the ch

The findingy improvemehigh) when d

s. However, becated at this time

sit at each ofave shown that have showll conduct ca

d at the districtchools have

year (2010-11uestion and wot address stuvement for ess proficien

mentary or mifollowing sp

plemented) wific strategiesme data; thu

with: districevel SIG ting the princse findings wn and analyschanges madlemented, suchallenges wit

gs are reporteent model differences am

cause high schoe. An analysis of

f the he wn ase

t and

1 will udent

cy iddle pring. were s and s,

t-

cipal were is

de by ch as th ed in

mong

ools f SIG

IMPLEM

We createcomponeWallace (as identifi

• R

• P

• C

• P

• D

• F

• L

• Sy

• St

• F

• Sc

• C

• In

• A

• A

A complefor the enevaluationcollected year evalu

Data collselecting (5) decisiointerventi

MENTATION

ed implemenents that are c(2007), MDEfied by WestE

Recruiting and

Professional d

Coaching

Performance e

Decision supp

Facilitative ad

Leadership

ystem interve

takeholder in

Family/Comm

chool enviro

Curriculum

nstruction

Assessment

Alignment of

ete descriptiontire evaluatin, each indicin stages thr

uation.

ection for thstaff; (2) proon support dions; and (9)

N INDICATO

ntation indicacritical for pr

E’s School ImEd’s School T

d staffing

development

evaluation

port data syst

dministration

entions

nvolvement a

munity engag

onment/clima

fiscal and hu

on of each inon and all daator will be a

roughout the

he current repofessional devdata systems;

assessment.

MethORS  AND IN

ators for bothrogram imple

mprovement FTurnaround

/training

tems

and accounta

gement

ate

uman resourc

ndicator is in ata collectionaddressed coevaluation b

port focused velopment an(6) facilitativ

Page 11

hodoloNTERVIEW

h the district ementation aFramework, Center. The

ability

ces

Appendix An instrumentsmprehensive

beginning wit

on the follownd training; (ve administra

ogy W PROTOCO

and school las identified band best pracomplete se

A. These indics. Over the cely. Data on tth the intervi

wing indicato(3) coaching;ation; (7) lead

OLS 

levels based by Finsen, Nactices of schet of indicator

cators form tcourse of the these indicatiews conduct

ors only: (1) (4) performdership; (8) s

on the core Naomi, Blasé,hool turnarours is:

the frameworthree-year

tors will be ted for this f

recruiting anmance evaluatisystem

, and und

rk

first-

nd ion;

Our evaluof schoolof indicat

DATA  CO

WestEd sand schoowere coneach interdistrict anas an empnumber oimprovemdiscussionInterviewthe decisiabout anyimprove with reprrespondeaggregateinterviewforms aft

INTERVI

We conduSIG schoin the 201these roleprincipal,other SIG

District admSchool prinSchool speDistrict admDistrict admTotal Indiv

uation focusel reform modtors.

OLLECTION

staff conductol-level SIG ducted by Wrview, the stand school. Atployee at Weof initiatives, ment and pern would pert

wees were toldions and stray constraints student outc

resentatives fents were tolde to MDE an

w questions wter completin

IEWS WITH

ucted telephoool specialists10-11 schooles in 2010-11, and the samG schools.

Exhibit 5Role(s) of

ministrator onncipal only  ecialist only ministrator anministrator anviduals Intervie

ed on these idels. Subsequ

N  

ted interviewspecialists. T

WestEd staff waff member pt the beginni

estEd who hastate and fed

rsistently lowtain only to td that for thi

ategies that scthey faced aomes. They w

from each schd that the inf

nd that specifwere typed dung each interv

H DISTRICT

one interviews in fall 2011l year is displ1. For two SI

me person act

5: Role of Yf the Interviewly 

d school speciad school princiewed 

ndicators beuent data coll

ws with districThe interviewwith experienprepared by ring of each inad been contderal statutor

west-achievingthe first year’is particular ichools and dias they workewere also tolhool and distformation frofic responses uring the inteview.

T AND SCHO

ws with 51 di. The numbelayed in ExhiIG schools, tted as the dis

Year One Intwee  

alist ipal  

Page 12

cause they relection will p

ct-level SIG w protocols cnce collectingreviewing thenterview, thetracted by MDry requiremeg schools, eas implementinterview, Wistricts undered to implemld that WestEtrict that receom these inteto questionsrviews, and i

OOL  STAFF

istrict SIG ader of individuibit 5. Severahe district ad

strict adminis

terviewees i

epresent critiprovide infor

administratocan be found g data from te SIG applic

e interviewer DE to assessnts, and fund

ach interviewtation of the

WestEd was cortook in year

ment intervenEd was condeived SIG fuerviews wouls would not binterviewers

F  

dministratorsuals we interval intervieweedministrator wstrator and th

in SIG Scho

ical first steprmation on th

ors, principalsin Appendix

telephone intcation for tha

introduced hs the SIGs. Bding streams

wee was reminSIG awardedollecting infor one related ntion models ducting the saunds in 2010.ld be reportebe identifiablmade additio

s, SIG schooviewed who wes filled morewas the samehe school spe

ols and DisNumber 

13 24 10 2251 

s in the adophe complete

s of SIG schox B. Interviewterviews. Forat particular himself or heBecause of th related to scnded that thed in 2010. ormation aboto SIG, and intended to

ame interview Finally,

ed in the le. Responseonal notes on

ol principals, were in eache than one ofe individual aecialist for tw

tricts

ption set

ools, ws r

erself he chool e

out

ws

es to n the

and h role f as the wo

DISTRICT

We also aadministrof the SIGbut one oadministrSIG at thadministrorganize principal SIG specof the disthree werthemselvedistrict SI

The specimajority orequiremewritten. Amodel usresponsibthe schoothe districand beingeach otheinformedspecifics, increasing

SIG SCH

WestEd smost caseone was ndiscuss SIWhen thainterviewprovide v

We intervat the sam

T SIG ADM

attempted to rators were thGs at the disof these indivrators reportehe district levration team. Ithat district’sof the SIG s

cialist. The acstrict adminisre in charge oes as SIG coIG administr

ific roles andof the districents and mon

About a thirded. Also, app

ble for districol, and helpinct administrag the contacter and stay abd the school s

and helping g student ach

OOL PRINC

staff attemptes, this indivino longer at IG implemenat was not po

ws were conduvaluable infor

viewed 26 SIme schools. T

INISTRATO

interview sohe individualtrict level in viduals serveded they were el, while fiveIn one districs SIG effort. school and, inctual job descstrators wereof districtwidaches, membrators did no

d duties of thct administratnitoring the

d of the admiproximately oct oversight ong prioritize fators were attt person for tbreast of chastaff of grantstaff to disce

hievement.

CIPALS  

ed to intervieidual was stilthe SIG schontation at theossible, we inucted in fall 2rmation abou

G school priThree princip

ORS  

omeone fromls who had th2010-11. Wed as a SIG adthe individu

e district admct, we spoke In two insta

n two other ccriptions of t district supe

de school tranbers of the got provide the

he district admtors focused school improinistrators wrone third of tof the grant’sfunds and actending netwthe MDE. Byange in SIG gt requirementern what to d

ew individuall at the sameool. Given their former scnterviewed th2011, it was aut implement

incipals, 20 opals had been

Page 13

m each of the he primary ree intervieweddministrator ual primarily r

ministrators wto members

ances, the discases, the disthe district aderintendents, nsformation overnance teeir formal titl

ministrator von coaching

ovement planrote the granthe district ads budget, cooctivities. Findworking meety networkinggrant requiremts by presentdo when the

als who were e SIG schoolhat these indihools, we ma

he current priassumed thattation progre

of whom wern SIG school

18 districts. esponsibility d 17 of the 18in 2010-11. Tresponsible f

were member of a consult

strict SIG admstrict adminisdministrators three were aor reform ef

eam, or adminle.

varied from dg the school pn to confirm

nt, planned timdministrator

ordination bedings indicatetings at distrig with othersments. Overting an overvrules change

SIG school l. In a few caividuals wereade an additi

rincipals at tht new principess in the pre

re principals l principals d

These districfor overseein

8 district admTen of the dfor implemenrs of a districting firm thatministrator wstrator was als varied consassistant supefforts. Othernistrative con

district to distprincipals on

m the plan wamelines, and

rs viewed theetween the bued the other mct, county an

s, they were arall the districview of the ged and to rem

principals duses, the prince in the best pional effort t

he SIG schoopals would stevious year.

during 2010-during the 20

ct SIG ng administr

ministrators. Aistrict ntation of tht-level SIG t was hired towas also the lso the schoo

siderably. Threrintendents,rs described nsultants. Sev

trict, with then grant s implemente

d selected theeir role as beiusiness officemajor tasks o

nd state levelable to learn ct administragrant as well amain focused

uring 2010-1cipal from yeposition to to interview tols. Because ttill be able to

-11 and 201110-11 schoo

ration All

e

o

ol’s ree , and

veral

e

ed as e ng e and of s, from

ators as the d on

1. In ear

them. the

o

1-12 l

year, but principalsschool. TWe intervwe determimplemendespite re

The majoimplemendiscussedSIG granas startingThey ovetogether tdistrict, thprincipalsclassroomteaching aexpenses

SIG SCH

We also aprincipal individuaOne schoanyone dcoordinatresourcesand aligncoaches tprofessioassessmenother proother refowith the f

BENCHM

Michiganprogress

were no longs had retired,

Three other cuviewed these mined that thntation in theepeated attem

ority of the pntation and md hiring staff nt. They institg professiona

ersaw differento meet the ghe school ims discussed bms, and “cleaand learning.as roles they

OOL SPECIA

attempted to did not choo

als. We intervool SIG specesignated as ting SIG imps, such as exted with the sto principals,nal developmnts were com

ojects, ensurinorm measurefocus on com

MARKING T

n is one of eigtowards SIG

ger at the sch, another wasurrent princiindividuals n

he current pre previous yempt to schedu

rincipals statmonitor implto make certtuted programal learning cont departmengoals set by t

mprovement tbeing involvearing the path.” Only threey played regar

ALISTS  

interview those a designaviewed 12 indialist was notthe primary

plementationternal providschool impro supporting t

ment. Less thmpleted, and ng that all coes. Several dismmunicating

TOOLS   

ght states to mG goals (Hurlb

hool by time s on medical ipals had notnonetheless bincipals coul

ear. We were ule interview

ted that their lementation otain that all pms and ideasommunities, nts within thethe SIG teamteams, teached in reviewin

h so [teacherse principals mrding the SIG

he SIG schooated SIG specdividuals whot available foindividual, o. The majoriers, coaching

ovement goalteachers thro

han half discufocusing on

omponents fiscussed serviSIG grant in

monitor its Sburt, Le Floc

Page 14

we conducteleave, and th

t been the pribecause we cld still providnot able to i

ws for two SIG

role during 2of all SIG req

personnel ands in the schooand hiring ane school to e

m. The principers, students,ng student bes and studentmentioned coG.

ol specialist. Icialist or thoo were SIG sor an interviewther than thety of the schg, and profesls. They accoough classrooussed how thmonitoring

it seamlessly ing as the liainformation fr

SIG schools ch, Therriaul

ed the intervihe third had incipal durincould not reade important interview anyG schools.

2010-11 wasquirements. d programs wol to meet thnd monitorinensure everyopals facilitate, and parentsenchmark dats] can get doontrolling the

In some casese duties werspecialists duw. Fifteen SIe principal, w

hool specialistssional develoomplished thiom observatiheir role inclustudent achiewith the schison between

from the state

at least once lt, & Cole, 20

view in fall 20been remove

ng the 2010-1ach the formeinformation

yone in the r

s to ensure fidHalf of the pwere in placehe goals of thng external seone was invoed communics. A small numata, observingown to the be budget and

es, we were tore distributed

uring 2010-11IG schools dwho was respts focused onopment, weris goal by actions, and prouded ensurinevement. Th

hool improven the district e back to the

a month in 011). Michiga

011. One of ted from the 1 school yeaer principal a

n about SIG role of princip

delity of principals e to support the SIG grant,ervice provid

olved and wocation amongmber of the g teachers in business of d approving

old that the d among man1 school yeardid not have ponsible for n making sure coordinateting as leaderoviding ng benchmarkhey also oversment plan anand the state

e school.

order to assean hired mon

these

ar. and

pal

the , such ders. orking g the

their

ny r.

re all d rship

k saw nd e,

ess nitors

to conducas the yeabenchmaannually) data on re

DATA  A

Interviewsimilar daby codingorder to aThese coexpressedoccurrencexaminedthemes aninterview

Once cod(turnaroudifferencethe bench

ct visits to eaar progressedrking tools. Twere shared

ecruiting and

NALYSIS  

w responses wata. We develg samples of assure inter-rdes were thed as words ance within thed throughoutnd generaliza

w regarding a

ding was comund and transes between mhmarking too

ach SIG schod. The data coThe complet

d by MDE wid selecting sta

were coded bloped a prelimthe data. Co

rater reliabilitn modified and phrases we qualitative dt the entire coations. This ispecific impl

mpleted, the dsformation) amodels or schol were exam

ool weekly duollected by mted benchmarith the evaluaaff, and perfo

by WestEd stminary set of

odes were assty, a subset oas necessary t

were listed anddata. Using thoding procesinvolved takilementation i

data were anaand school lehool levels ar

mined during

Page 15

uring the begmonitors durirking tools (oation team anormance eva

taff with expef codes for eigned to stat

of the indicatto increase agd counted achis iterative pss. During anng one pieceindicator) an

alyzed and suevel (elementre discussed ianalysis and

ginning of thing site visitsone for each nd were usedaluation.

erience codineach indicatortements basetors was codegreement. Thccording to thprocess, codenalysis, staff ee of data (e.g.nd comparing

ummarized atary, middle,in the findinsynthesis of

he grant perios were synthe school, upd

d as a supplem

ng, analyzingr based on pd on these caed by a seconhen, key themhe frequencyes were modexamined the., one statemg it with othe

across schooland high). N

ngs. Supplemethe interview

od, and montesized into ated three timmental sourc

g, and synthesprior researchategories. In nd researchermes that wery of their dified and date codes for

ment in an ers.

ls, and by moNotable ental data frow data.

thly

mes ce of

sizing h and

r. re

ta re-

odel

om

FinThis sectitelephonemonitorinexaminedand 18 diThe next evaluationschool rediscuss th

SUMMA

DISTRIC

We foundleadershipschedulesleadershippractices.These teaaddition, departmedevelopm

Changes limited cothat theirfunctionichanges aflexibilityfelt the mreported developm

The mostdistrict butransformas lengthydelays in

ndingsion of the repe interviews wng benchmard in the first iistricts, highlisection discu

n focused onform models

he trends fou

ARY OF THE

CT AND SCH

d that SIG scp by the end s (namely, exp so that sch. Standing SIams set the pa common t

ent heads andment and coa

in governancompared to t districts hadng of SIG scat the districty by districts most constrain

that they helment of profe

t frequently mureaucracy. T

mation schooy multi-step aobtaining tec

s ‐ SIG port presentswith district rking tool. Fiimplementatiighting diverusses these trn the subset os. Findings inund for the cu

E FINDINGS

HOOL  GOV

chools made of the first y

xtension of thhool staff play

G teams ofteparameters fotheme at schod professionaching in area

ce and leaderthe changes ad yet to modichools. Howet level, all sch- most commnts from distlped empoweessional learn

mentioned oThis seemed ols. Specificalapproval prochnologies, m

Imples findings froand school sirst, we preseion year. Werging trends brends in morof indicators n subsequenturrent indica

S   

ERNANCE A

appreciable year. The mohe school dayyed a larger ren provided

or SIG implemools was incral learning coas such as dat

rship at the dat schools. Inify their cultuever, despite hools reportemonly in the tricts with buer teachers byning commun

bstacle to SIto be more oly, individual

ocesses requirmaterials, and

Page 16

ementom our analystaff, supplement a summare discuss trenbetween SIGre detail. Datthat represen

t reports will ators over the

AND LEADE

modificationost common my) and principrole in key dethe opportunmentation anreased teacheommunities, ata use and in

district level dn fact, staff frure to a degrethe dearth o

ed they were areas of staff

udgeting and y offering prnities.

G implemenof an impedimls spoke of dred by the did staff. Many

tation yses of data fmented with ry of the tren

nds in the aggG models or sta collection nt critical firfocus on the

e three years

ERSHIP  

ns to both gomodificationpals exercisinecisions regarnity for sharend operationer empowermand through

nstruction.

during the firrom most disee that signif

of wholesale allowed somf reassignmeselecting cur

rofessional de

ntation duringment at turn

delays in the ristrict, both oy respondent

in Yeafrom the semdata from thnds for each gregate acrosschool levels during this fist steps in the full set of inof SIG impl

overnance strns were changng shared or rding school ed leadership

nalized progrement through the provisio

rst year were stricts and scficantly improstructural or

me degree of nt and schedrricula. Finalevelopment

g the first yeaaround schorelease of SIGof which led ts claimed thi

ar Onemi-structured he state’s indicator we

ss all 28 schowhere warra

first phase of he adoption ondicators andlementation.

ructures and ges to schoodistributed policies and

p at the schooess indicatorsh creation of on of profess

much more chools claimeoved the procedural freedom and

duling. Princilly, districts and fostering

ar involved ools compareG funds, as wto substantiais was at leas

e  

e ols anted. f the of d

ol

d ols. s. In

fional

ed

d ipals

g

d to well al t part

of the reaspend all

STAFF R

By and laFor examscreened fell short that princretaining considerathe SIG aprevented

Only abowere usedcompetenarticulatethat they When morevolved a collabor

PERFOR

In 2010-1very few evaluationin responreviewingchanged thad not yappeared for princiWhen sucwere mor

The mostStudent aremovingdevelopedin place a

ason why SIGof the funds

RECRUITME

arge, SIG schmple, all SIG

their staff anof filling all

cipals of turnteachers on

ation during tawards were d them from

out a fifth of d - or that thncies is requid at turnaroufrequently re

ore specific saround technrative enviro

RMANCE EV

11, most distdistricts had n. Only two

nse to SIG reg records of ato include dayet changed t

to be no comipals. About ch incentivesre likely to be

t common elacademic grog teachers wad (but not in

at about half

G plans for ths allocated fo

ENT AND S

hools met all schools repla

nd rehired nonon-teaching

naround schothe basis of sthe hiring prannounced nbeing able to

all SIG schoey planned toired for turnaund schools celied on theirskills and comnology use innment.

VALUATION

ricts and schcomprehensdistricts specquirements. actual SIG imata on studenthe conditionmmon elemehalf of the sc

s were availabe aimed at tra

lement of thewth was an e

as in place at n place) at sev

the schools w

he first year wor that year.

ELECTION

the fundameaced the schoo more than 5g positions cools felt theirseniority, preocess. In addnear (or at) tho hire new, n

ols could ideo use - for hiaround schoocompared tor standard hirmpetencies wn the classroo

N, INCENTI

hools were desively modificifically referAt one scho

mplementationt achievemens under whicents (e.g., critchools madeble, they weransformation

e teacher evaelement at seabout a third

veral other scwith many di

Page 17

were not full

ental staffing ool principal 50 percent oreated specif

r district’s hirevented themdition, turnarhe beginningnon-teaching

entify very spiring. The usols; however,

o transformatring processe

were describeom, data-driv

VES, AND 

eveloping newed their proc

rred to modifol, the evaluaon against grant. Findings ch principalstical skills fore a performanre almost alwn school prin

aluation proceveral schoold of the schochools. Incenistrict and sc

ly implement

g requirementand all but o

of teachers. Hfically for thering requirem

m from takinground principg of the 2010g staff before

pecific criticase of locally a, these were tion schools. es when scred by district ven instructio

STAFF REM

w staff perfocedures for pfying their pration processant plans. Atindicated tha

s and teacherr removal) acnce incentive

ways tied to stncipals.

ess in 2010-1s. The distric

ools while nentives for stachool staff in

ted and that

ts under SIGone of the tu

However, turne SIG. Gener

ments, which g staff perforpals expresse-11 school y

e the start of

al skills or comadopted skillsless fully devIn general, d

eening staff foschool staff,on, and the a

MOVAL 

ormance evalprincipal and rincipal evalus changed tot the second,at most distrrs could be recross the evae available to tudent perfor

11 was classrct’s standard ew procedureaff other thandicating their

they could n

G in the first yurnaround schnaround schorally, we foungave priority

rmance into ed frustrationear, which the school ye

mpetencies ts and veloped or districts repofor SIG schoo, they usuallyability to wor

uation systemteacher

uation proces include the process

ricts and schoemoved. Thealuation syste

the principarmance and t

room observaprocedure fo

es were beingn principals wr implementa

not

year. hools ools nd y to

n that

ear.

that

orted ols.

y rk in

ms;

sses

ools ere ems al. they

ation. or g were ation

was delayrespondeimplementhey necewere citedthree of t

PROFES

SIGs proof schoolcoaching that princteachers. frequent

Teachers curriculumbehavior professioactivities.implemenleadershipcontent.

MONITO

All schoofrequencymonitorindaily) bas

Overall, msuch as pthat distrisubmitteddistricts uthe curric

The majoalternativteachers aadministe

yed due to neents cited diffnting plans foessitated negod as impedimthese schools

SIONAL DE

ovided for sigls as either hidelivered to

cipals receiveIn addition, professional

received prom and contenmanagemennal developm The contentntation (e.g., p skills). Coa

ORING BY D

ols and districy of monitorng on a moresis.

monitoring brofessional dicts used to md by the schoused student cula and re-d

ority of schoove benchmarkadminister beering them ev

egotiations beficulty implemor performanotiations with

ments to impls having had

EVELOPME

gnificant trainigh or mediuboth teacher

ed covered feprincipals andevelopmen

ofessional devnt standards,t, peer obser

ment that reflt of coachingaligning curr

aching conten

DISTRICTS  

cts monitoreing varied gre regular basi

by districts fodevelopment monitor schoools. Most diperformanceesign them. H

ols monitoreks, while a menchmark asven more fre

etween the dmenting somnce evaluatioh unions reprlementation adopted the

NT AND CO

ning in suppoum on the brers and princiewer domainnd teachers ant and coachi

velopment in, support forrvation, data flected their lg for principariculum, instrnt for teacher

AND SCHO

d SIG implemreatly. Not suis than distric

ocused on faiactivities and

ools ranged fistricts monite on state assHowever, fiv

d student leaminority of sch

sessments atequently (e.g.

Page 18

district and thme SIG requiron, provisionresenting teain seven schoturnaround

OACHING 

ort of schooleadth and freipals, althougs and was lest transformaing than staff

n a variety ofr struggling stuse, and claseadership roals focused oruction, and rs primarily f

OOLS   

mentation tourprisingly, pcts, often on

ithful implemd profession

from classrootored on a qusessments anve districts re

arning by usinhools used ot least three ti, monthly). I

he teachers’ brements (e.g.s for staff inc

achers and otools (four inmodel.

l reform. Oveequency of pgh professionss frequent cation schoolsf at turnarou

f areas, includtudents, instrssroom obseroles and the fon supportingassessments;focused on li

o some degreprincipals in gn a monthly to

mentation of nal learning coom observatiuarterly or mnd benchmarkeported little

ng the state aonly the lattertimes in the fIn addition, t

bargaining un., hiring, schecentives and ther staff. Te

n a single larg

erall, we rankprofessional dnal developmcompared to received bro

und schools.

ding: instructruction for Ervation. Prinfact that they g effective SI; monitoringiteracy or ma

ee; however, general tendeo weekly (an

specific SIGommunities. ions to review

monthly basis.king tools toor no monit

assessments r. The majorifirst year andthe majority o

nit. Indeed, eduling, removal) wh

eacher unionsge district), w

ked the majodevelopment

ment and coacthat receivedoader and mo

tional strategEnglish learnecipals receive

y managed SIIG

g teachers; athematics

the form anded to engage nd sometimes

G componentThe method

wing reports . The majorit

o identify gaptoring in 201

as well as ity of school

d some teacheof schools of

hen s

with

ority t and ching d by ore

gies, ers, ed IG

d in

s

ts ds

ty of ps in 0-11.

ls had ers ften

used meeabout inscompreheindicator.implemenemphasis

DETAILE

GOVERN

This sectiduring thfirst revieof shifts i

CHANGE

Large-scaSIG schofacilitate torganizatwas chanof the schusing exisand faciliprincipalsleadershipheads, or administr

The creatleadershipFormulatmaking. Tseveral camaintaineadministrleaders, osuch a dateams increported

etings betweetruction. In tensive appro. Principals antation indica on student p

ED DISCUSS

NANCE AND

ion provides he first year oew shifts in gin these same

ES IN GOVE

ale changes aools. Consequthese changetional structuges to schoohools cited adsting staff in tators as signs utilized shap included threformulatio

rative staff.

tion of a SIGp, increasing tion of a stanTwenty-one sases, these weed after receirator (most oor departmenata specialist, cluded studenrole of the sc

en the adminthe first year

oach to moniat transformaators includinperformance

SION OF TH

D LEADERS

an overviewof SIG implemgovernance ane areas at the

ERNANCE A

re intended tuently, modifes. School anures followingol schedules, ndding staff (mnew capaciti

nificant changared or distribhe creation oon of govern

G leadership tstaff input in

nding SIG teaschools repoere school tript of SIG fuoften the prinntal heads. M

special educnts, parents, chool-level S

istration and, principals atoring but fo

ation schoolsng parent an

e as a measur

HE  FINDING

SHIP  

w of modificamentation at nd leadershipe district leve

ND LEADER

to accompanfications in b

nd district stag adoption onamely extenmainly experies, creating pges in organibuted leadersf SIG teams,

nance boards

team is one wnto reforms am provided

orted formingansition team

unding. Thesencipal or an aost of the sch

cation staff, inor other stak

SIG teams wa

Page 19

d teams of teaat turnaroundocused mainly, on the othed student sur

re of impleme

GS   

ations that weboth the sch

p at the SIG el.

RSHIP AT TH

ny both the trboth governaff were askedf the SIG. T

nsion of the srts in data anaprofessional izational struship, resulting, identificatioto include te

way that schoand changes schools with

g teams beforms that were e teams usuaassistant prinhool-level SInstructional ckeholders froas designing

achers to mad schools appy on studenter hand, incorveys, and mentation.

ere made to ghool and distschools. Thi

HE SCHOOL

ransformatioance and leadd about any m

The most comschool day. Ialysis and dalearning com

ucture. Finallyg in major ch

on of contenteachers, coun

ool principalsthat are imp

h consistent lre or during formed befo

ally comprisencipal), subjecIG teams alsocoaches, or s

om the commthe SIG plan

ake data-inforpeared to takt performancorporated a grmonitored ins

governance atrict levels. Inis is followed

L LEVEL 

on and turnardership usuallmodification

mmon modifiIn addition, sata-driven decmmunities, any, staff mentihanges. In tht team leads nselors and o

s can expandplemented in leadership anthe first year

ore the SIG ad at least onect content leao included otschool couns

munity. The mn, setting goa

rmed decisioke a somewhace as the primreater varietytruction with

and leadershin this sectiond by a discuss

round modelly are require

ns in schools’fication discustaff at one-fcision makinnd hiring coaioned that

hese cases, shor departme

other

d and share schools.

nd decision-r of the SIG.award and e school aders, grade-ther school sselors. Only amost commoals for SIG

ons at

mary y of h less

ip n, we sion

ls in ed to ’

ussed fourth ng), aches

hared nt

In

level staff a few

only

implemenSIG plan teams weassessmenprofessiowith their

CHANGE

Any majolevel. Schadhering schools, tdistricts athe extenteachers adistrict haHoweverschool stafacilitatorwith unioschool stastreamlinshifting pimpacted

Similar toin which SIG teamteams incalways thassistant pfound thaoffices. Mthe schooprocessesHoweverSIG impl

Finally, a school’s cMichiganof SIG im

ntation, and cwith the sch

ere responsibnts and othernal developmr internal pro

ES IN GOVE

or shifts in gohools are the to the modethe district isare expected nt to which that SIG schooad yet to mor, intervieweeaff from abors in the first ons so that scaff noted tha

ned. In only oprincipals bet the school.

o modificatiodistricts attem

m with permacluded staff we district supprincipal. A nat these distr

Many also plaols’ implemens and procedr, only a smallementation o

little over hacore curricula

n or Commonmplementatio

creating indichool improvele for assessir benchmark

ment, advisinofessional lea

ERNANCE A

overnance antargets of thls’ requireme expected toto serve both

he district mools. The mostdify its cultur

es in a numbeout a quarter

year. In addchool staff haat the commuone school ditween differe

ons in school mpt to better

anent membewho played a perintendent number also ict-level SIG

ayed an adminntation plansures for SIGll number of or student pr

alf of the dista. Some of thn Core State on by aligning

cators of proement plans ting progress ks, or that theng instructionarning comm

ND LEADER

nd leadershipe transformaents. Howeveprovide sup

h these functodified organt frequent rere to a degreer of districtsof the schoo

dition, other sad more flexiunication proid the staff feent schools in

governance,r fulfill SIG rership to help

number of oor assistant sincluded tea

G teams, in genistrative rols, helping sch

G implementadistrict SIG

rogress on ou

tricts influenhese decisionStandards, wg the curricu

Page 20

ogress. Severathat precededtowards goaley actively sunal initiatives

munities.

RSHIP AT TH

p related to SIation or turnaer, because L

pport to and mtions, both dnizational strusponse from

ee that impros did report s

ols mentionedstaff reportedibility in scheocess with aneel that the cn the district

, the formatioroles. Approp administer other roles insuperintendeachers and reeneral, acted le by writing hools interpreation, and assteams repor

utcomes.

nced daily insns had been mwhile other diula with Mich

al teams werd SIG. Otherls by reviewi

upported teac, coaching te

HE DISTRIC

IGs are expearound mode

LEAs apply fmonitoring o

district and scuctures to be

m both districoved the funcsome positivd that the disd that a few oeduling and, nd requests frhanges initiaincluding a S

on of a distrioximately half

SIG and supn the districtsent as well as epresentativeas liaisons bethe SIG granet the SIG resessing progrrted playing a

truction at thmade prior toistricts chose

higan’s standa

e charged wir schools reping data fromchers by planeachers, or co

CT LEVEL 

ected mainly els, and are rfor the grantsof SIG recipichool staff wetter supportct and schoolctioning of thve changes. Fstrict provideof the districless frequent

from the distrated by the diSIG school)

ict-level SIGf of the distrpport SIG scs or schools, the SIG schs from externetween schoont applicationequirements ress in impleman active role

hese schools o SIG awarde curricula duards, the Com

ith integratinported their Sm formative nning teacherommunicatin

at the schooresponsible fos on behalf oients. Becaus

were asked abt principals anl staff was thhe SIG schoo

For example, ed coaches ancts had negottly, hiring. Orict had beenistrict (e.g., had negative

G team is onericts formed achools. These

and almost hools’ principnal providersols and distrins or reviewiand the necementation.

e in monitorin

by choosingd using the uring the firsmmon Core

ng the SIG

r ng

ol for of the se bout nd at the ols.

nd tiated

Other n

ely

way a e

pal or s. We ict ing essary

ng

g the

t year State

Standardsabout curcurricula the turnar

SHIFTIN

One way less top-dimposed curriculummaking suoutcomesminimal c

Through some degthat they there waskept infolimited orschool di

More combetween treassigninPrincipalsimpact stunderperdata analy

Approximof the casextended also increinterventimathemaCorrectivprincipalsone princ

Less thanbudget. P

s, or the ACTrricula collabwithout schoround model

G CONTRO

in which a ddown decisioby the districm selection, ubstantive chs. This sectioconstraints.

our interviewgree of freedowere able to

s complete aurmed. On thr virtually nostrict. These

mmonly the athe two extreng teachers as reassigned udent achievforming, or tysts, English

mately half ofses, principalthe school d

eased the schion and enric

atics. Responve Reading, Rs reported mcipal changed

n half of the rPrincipals wh

T or other coboratively witool-level inpul tended to ta

L FROM TH

district can mon making, wct. When diststaff hiring, ahanges to theon focuses on

ws, we foundom and flexib exercise comutonomy to r

he other hando freedom ov

limitations w

amount of fremes. The m

and staff intoteachers and

vement. Less they could crlanguage art

f the principals changed thday, added afhool year. Thechment oppodents discuss

Renaissance Laking schedu

d the master

respondents ho had flexibi

ollege readineth the SIG scut. Districts wake a more a

HE DISTRICT

modify its cultwhich frees th

tricts provideand schedulineir own climan the extent t

d that all 28 Sbility in implmplete freedorun the schood, a small grover SIG implewere typically

reedom and fmost common

other positiod staff primar

frequently, preate new pots (ELA) teac

als had the frhe school schfter school pre primary reaortunities to sed implemeLearning, anduling changesschedule in o

reported thaility with the

Page 21

ess criteria. Achools, a littlewith SIG hig

active role in

T TO THE SC

ture is by prohe school frome schools witng it allows sate, teacher pto which dist

SIG schools lementing SIom over SIGol as long as

oup of principementation; ty related to th

flexibility gran flexibility grons, differenrily in an effoprincipals cousitions and h

chers, and co

reedom to chhedule to allorogramming ason for chanstudents strunting interved math labs ts to improveorder to com

at principals hbudget focu

Although a fee over half ogh schools orcurriculum s

CHOOL 

oviding schoom a number th more discrschools to acperformance,tricts allowed

were allowedG. A small n

G implementathe Board an

pals reportedthe majority he school cal

anted by the dgranted schoont grade levelort to benefituld also reas

hire staff suchoaches to assi

hange the schow for extend

and Saturdaynging the schuggling in Enention courseto meet the ne the school embat gang figh

had freedomused on impro

ew districts mf districts chr that had SIGselection.

ols with morof constrainretion in areaccept more re, and studentd SIG school

d by their disnumber of pration. One prnd the Superd they possesof these werlendar or bud

district fell sool principals wls, or leadersht students andsign teachersh as instructiist in areas o

hool schedulded learning y school prohedule was tonglish languages such as Reneeds of thesenvironmenthting at the m

m and flexibilioving teachin

made decisionhose schools’ G schools us

re autonomy nts usually as such as esponsibility t academic ls to work un

stricts to exerrincipals reporincipal reporintendent wessed severely re from one dget.

omewhere inwas that of hip roles. d positively s who were ional specialif need.

le. In the majtime. Principgramming, ao provide moge arts and ead 180, se students. S. For examplmiddle schoo

ity with the ng and learni

ns

sing

and

for

nder

rcise orted orted ere

n

ists,

jority pals and ore

Some le, ol.

ing

by allocatinstructiodistrict ofhad flexibunderstan

Finally, dstakeholdthat theirprofessioprofessioperformaallowing tallowing

WORKIN

Just as shwith outslack the cwork of sstakeholdavailable providingfacilitate capacity (

We foundprovide pimplemenselected, between t

In Michigare selecthowever,2010-201Regional FoundatiMichigan

InterviewReasons g

ting funds toonal materialsffice on howbility with thending allowab

districts also mders other tha district helpnal learning nal developm

ance data. Lethem to exprstudents and

NG WITH EX

hifts in governside entities tcapacity to doschools and dders are able to districts a

g quality contsetting up a s(Hurlburt, Le

d that the schprofessional dntation. The the specific sthe SIG recip

gan, SIG schted from a pr in these case1 school yeaEducational on), and univ

n State Unive

wees stated thgiven by dist

interventions such as ELA

w to manage te budget becble and unall

moved away an the princip

ped empowercommunities

ment, and pross commonlyress their view

d parents to in

XTERNAL PR

nance and lehat provide so so on their districts, and to hold provlist of appro

trol measuresupport netwe Floch, Ther

hools in this developmentpurpose of tservices they pients and pr

ools or their re-approved les, the extern

ar, external prService Age

versities (e.g.rsity).

hat the districtrict administ

n strategies, tA books. Somthe SIG budgcame increasilowable use o

from top-dopal. Ten distr teachers thrs, allowing teoviding themy, districts rews through snform and sh

ROVIDERS

adership are schools with own. The roclarity about

viders accounoved service ps for identify

work at a statrriault, & Co

study used et, coach and this section isprovided, ro

roviders.

districts are list. Districtsnal provider mroviders incluncies, for-pr, the Univers

ct selected extrators for se

Page 22

teacher profeme principalget. The interingly comforof funds.

own decision-rict administrough the diseachers to chm the training

ferred to emsurveys. Disthape school p

 

key componsystemic int

ole of the sert a provider’s

ntable. Like aproviders. Mying external te and regionole, 2011).

external servimentor teachs to describe oles they play

required to ss or schools mmust go throuded several ofit entities (sity of Michig

xternal providlecting provi

essional devels also receiverview resultsrtable with m

-making by etrators (represtrict’s direct hoose the cong to interpret

mpowering stutricts considepolicy.

nents of SIG terventions wrvice provides role is essen

all states, MicMichigan was

providers annal level of SI

ice providershers and prinhow externa

yed in year on

select externamay select a pough the MDIntermediat

(e.g., Pearsonigan, Central

ders for abouiders include

elopment, teced specific gu

s suggest thatmanaging SIG

empowering esenting 15 sc

creation andntent of distrt and act on sudents and thered this feed

interventionwhere the scher is key in suntial to ensurchigan was reone of 18 sta

nd one of eigIG schools to

to help themncipals, and mal service prone, and the r

al providers. provider not

DE approval e School Dis

n, SuccesslineMichigan Un

ut a quarter od that the di

chnology, anduidance fromt principals w

G, such as

school chools) stated support of rict-sponsorestudent heir parents bdback, thus

ns, so is workhools or distrupporting there different equired to maates to focus

ght states to o improve

m hire staff, monitor SIGoviders were relationships

Usually, thet on the list; process. Forstricts and e, HOPE niversity,

of schools. strict already

d m the who

d

ed

by

king ricts e

ake s on

G

se

r the

y had

a workingschools thworking w

The relatiservices. Sprovider(were suppaccountabtransformRespondecommuni

While modistricts otheir exteprovidersdecided t

STAFF R

Staff recrturnarounprincipalsneeded totransformand use lorehiring e

This sectiWe begincritical skand end w

Overall, eto identifcompetencompetencompetenstaff and in place inboth distr

g relationshiphe flexibility with multiple

ionship betwSeveral scho(s). Respondeportive of reble for SIG i

mations schooents reportedication, and h

ost SIG recipor schools remernal provides were unrespo contract w

RECRUITME

ruitment and nd and transfs and the impo assist studemation modelocally adopteexisting staff

ion reviews hn by examininkills and localwith a discus

each SIG schfy locally adoncies. Turnarncies or criticncies or criticrehired no mn SIG schoorict and scho

p between threquired to i

e external pro

ween schools ols reported ents shared tform effortsimplementatiols indicated d their externhad not met

pients did notmoved one or reported thponsive to sc

with a new pro

ENT AND S

selection is kformation mplementationents. The turnl by requiringed competenand selecting

how SIG recing what we lelly adopted csion of the e

hool met the pted competround schoolcal skills, andcal skills. Nomore than 50ols, some SIGool levels.

he district andimplement thoviders simu

and externalhaving an ovhat external , collaboratedion. Howevethe schools

nal providersschools’ exp

t report chanof their originhey were unhchool requestovider.

ELECTION

key to the sumodels. Both mn of strategiesnaround modg LEAs to re

ncies to measug new staff.

ipients approearned aboutompetencies

extent to whi

requirementtences, we fols were less s

d therefore lenetheless, allpercent of t

G positions (e

Page 23

d the providehe vision out

ultaneously de

l providers isverall positivproviders estd with staff a

er, staff fromwere dissatis were ineffec

pectations.

nging their prnal external p

happy with thts. In one cas

uccessful impmodels affecs to recruit andel goes beyoeplace at leasture the effec

oached the pt replacing prs that were idch schools re

t for replacingound only a fsuccessful thaess successfull but one of teachers. Furte.g., data and

er, or that thotlined in the Sepending on

s key for succve relationshiptablished relaat meetings, a

m two turnarosfied with thective, offered

roviders, therproviders. Thhe services bese, the schoo

plementation ct staffing by nd retain staond the requt 50 percent

ctiveness of s

rocess of recrincipals, mo

dentified as cehired existin

g the school few schools tan transforml at selecting the turnarounther, while al

d community

ose providerSIG. Several the provider

cessful implep with their ationships wiand held the

ound and threeir external pd no support,

re were a fewhe few schooeing providedol shifted foc

of SIGs in brequiring th

aff with the spuirements of of the teache

staff when sc

cruiting and sove to a discucritical when ng staff and h

principal. Rethat had spec

mation schoolnew staff band schools sll the classro

y specialist) w

rs would giveschools repo

rs’ specialty.

ementation oexternal ith the schooschool

ee providers. , lacked

w instances wols who chand or that the

cus and there

both the e replacemenpecific skills the ers at a schoo

creening and

selecting stafussion of thehiring new sthired new sta

egarding the cifically identls at identifyiased on local creened theirom teachers

went unfilled

e the orted

of

ol,

where nged fore

nt of

ol

ff. e taff, aff.

need tified ing

r were at

REPLACI

Replacingmodels. Ewhen a pprincipal.the 2010-replaced p

Year oPlacem

2011‐12010‐12009‐12008‐02007‐0Total 

CRITICA

SIG requeffectivenlearned fr

Interviewcriteria, aThe promefforts at schools. Madding thpractice f

While somof very spareas tiedtechnologstudents, being knoprofessiostaff muscommitm

ING PRINCI

g the school Exhibit 6 prerincipal bega. In general, m-11 school yeprincipals at

Exhibit 6:

f ment  Turnar

N (12  1 (111  7 (710  1 (109  0 (008  0 (0

9 (1

L SKILLS AN

uirements callness of staff wrom our inte

ws with districnd skills iden

mpt elicited athe school. F

Many responhat it is a stateformed a par

me respondepecific criterid to school regy in the clasand the abili

owledgeable nal developm

st fulfill workment and agre

PALS  

principal is aesents data onan working atmost principear. A breakd89 percent o

Principal RSIG Mode

round %)  

Trans

11)78)11)00)00)100)  1

ND LOCALLY

l for turnarouwho work torviews involv

ct staff and pntified by thea wide range oFrequently, d

ndents also oewide requiret of hiring ru

ents could onia and skills feform. Thesessroom, a desity to embracabout schoo

ment and woking at a SIG ee to comply

a requiremenn replacing pt a school. Eals (65 perce

down by interof turnaround

Replacementl sformation N (%) 2 (11)8 (42)2 (11)4 (21)3 (16)

19 (100)

Y ADOPTED

und schools o meet the neving both tur

principals aske district as crof responsesdistricts usedften mentionement in Micubrics at 25 p

nly speak abofor staff. Thee areas includsire to work wce change. Sel reform or trk extended school, and

y with the inc

Page 24

t of both theprincipals at Sach school m

ent) have beervention mod and 53 perc

t by Interven

Elementary N (%) 1 (25)3 (75)0 (00)0 (00)0 (00)4 (100)

D COMPETE

to use locallyeeds of studernaround and

ked responderitical to SIG

s regardless od their standaned they sougchigan. Charlpercent of sch

out qualificatie more specifded knowledgwith colleagueveral responthe SIG and whours. Someone school a

creased job d

e SIG turnaroSIG schools,met the requien in their podel indicatescent of trans

ntion ModeSchool LevMiddle N (%) 1 (14)4 (57)0 (00)2 (29)0 (00)7 (100) 1

ENCIES 

y adopted coents. This secd transforma

ents to “DescG-related schoof the changeard hiring praght teachers lotte Danielshools.

ions on a genfic areas menge of data usues, the abilitndents referrewillingness t

e schools discasked its stafemands of th

ound and tra, showing theirement for rosition since t that since 20

sformation sc

el and SchoovelHigh N (%) 

K‐N 

1 (6) 0 7 (44) 1 (3 (19) 0 2 (13) 0 3 (19) 0 

16 (100)  1 (

ompetencies tction examination schools

cribe the stafool improveme model guidiactices to scrwho were hi

son’s framew

neral level, otntioned reflece and the abity to connected to the impto both particcussed the joff to sign a lehe SIG schoo

ansformatione school yearreplacing its the beginnin010-11, LEAchools.

ol Level

TotaN (%‐12  

(%) (00)  3 (11100)  15 (54(00)  3 (11(00)  4 (14(00)  3 (11100)  28 (10

to measure tes what we

s.

ff qualificatioment effortsing reform een staff for ighly qualifie

work for teach

thers could scted importaility to work t with struggportance of scipate in ob demands ttter of ol.

n r

ng of As

l ) 

1)4)1)4)1)00)

the

ons, .”

SIG d, hing

speak ant

with gling staff

their

Exhibit 7could spereviewingschools preflected spoke of schools. Wrepresentarea teach

Our revieabout staschools aspecificitylow (56 pturnarounprincipalsteachers. most high

E

Level oSpecifi

High Mediu Low Data NAvailabTotal 

REHIRIN

The turnacompetenselect newfor impleturnarounmet the rschool thwhen SIGthe teachpercent nprincipals

7 presents dateak about theg the intervieprovided mulan understantwo or threeWe rated schting low-ratedher, rather th

ew found thaff competenc

are implemeny represent ju

percent) or mnd schools ms or SIG specThe three elh and middle

xhibit 7: Sp

of icity  Turna

N (0 (

m  4 (45 (

Not ble 

0 (

9 (1

NG STAFF, H

around modencies and to rw staff using ementation atnd schools shequirement t

hat did not mG implementers’ union an

new staff, prins felt their di

ta on the ovee qualificationews from eachltiple examplnding of the e competencihools as low wd sites often

han the comp

at schools gencies. Only 18

nting the tranust of 26 per

medium (44 pmay be a resulcialists felt exementary sche schools as h

ecificity of CSIG Mode

round (%) 

Trans

(0) 44)56)(0) 

100)  1

HIRING NEW

el requires anrehire no molocally adop

t nine schoolhowed mixedto screen and

meet the requitation began; nd were allowncipals oftenstricts’ hiring

erall level of ns for staff. Wh of the staffles of the kinchallenges coies, and respowhen they prtalked more

petencies they

nerally provi8 percent of snsformation mrcent of the trercent) specilt of four of xisting districhools with lohaving local c

Competencel sformation N (%) 5 (26)7 (37)6 (32)1 (5)

19 (100)

W STAFF 

n LEA to scrore than 50 pted competels, two of whd results in md rehire no mirement indichowever, sh

wed to remainn were not sag requiremen

Page 25

specificity wiWe scored thf members in

nds of staff coonfronting sconses were nrovided only about who ty sought whe

ded a mediumschools provmodel. Theseransformatioificity. The hthese five scct staffing poow specificitycompetences

ies by Interv

Elementary N (%) 0 (0)0 (0)3 (75)1 (25)

4 (100)

reen the existpercent of theencies. Four dhich contain smeeting thesemore than 50 cated that shehe encounteren at the scho

atisfied with tnts, which gav

with which thehe level of spn relationshipompetencies chools. The s

not as rich as y one charactethey had hireen hiring the

m to low levvided high spe transformaon schools. Thigher percenchools being olicies constry are also locas of medium

rvention MoSchool LeveMiddle N (%) 1 (14)4 (57)2 (29)0 (0)

7 (100) 1

ting staff at aem. Additiondistricts adopseven schoole staffing reqpercent of s

e tried to reped difficultie

ool. Even whthe hiring prove priority to

e school andpecificity for p to that schothey sought,

schools ratedthose from heristic. Respo

ed, perhaps ae staff person

vel of specificpecificity, andation schools Turnaround sntage of low slocated in a d

rained the hirated in that dor low speci

odel and SchelHigh N (%) 

KN 

4 (25) 0 6 (38) 1 (6 (38)0 (0) 0 

16 (100)  1 (

a school usinnally, these scpted the turnls. Data from

quirements. Ataff. The prin

place some oes as staff filehen the schooocess at the do retaining te

d district staffa school afteool. High-sco, and respond as medium high-scoringondents

a coach or con.

city when talkd all of these

with high schools provspecificity district wherring of new district. We rificity.

hool Level

TotaN (%‐12 

(%) (0)  5 (18100)  11 (390  11 (39(0)  1 (4)

100)  28 (10

ng locally adochools are to

naround modm the SIG All but one scncipal of thef the teacher

ed grievancesol hired over district level.

eachers on th

f er oring ses

g

ontent

king

vided

re

rated

l ) 

8)9)9))

00)

opted o del

chool e one rs s with

50 The

he

basis of staking staselecting found tha2010-11 s

Finally, wpositions delay appliteracy sppositions counselorquickly scfunctione

PERFOR

SIGs prograduatiohighlighteopportunevaluate tduring inprepared about ava

Overall, iincentivizfurther deevaluationCharlottecompetenmodel inc

PerformaWhen avaschools doperationwill be anhow syste

seniority, “stuaff performannew staff usiat only three school year. T

while it appeacreated by S

peared to be apecialist and like a comm

r. Our intervchools were aed in the unfi

RMANCE EV

ovide provisioon rates at lowed by SIG re

nities for carethe performaterviews withby site moni

ailable incent

in 2010-11 dize and evaluaeveloped than included cle Danielson. ncies to meascluded studen

ance incentivailable, such

developed incnal at only han opportunityems are being

unted progrence into consing locally adout of nine t

The other sc

ars that all claSIGs at both at the districtthe technolo

munity engageviews indicateable to hire silled SIG role

VALUATION

ons for the rew-performingequirements ieer growth thance of teachh district anditors regardintives.

istricts and scate performanan those for plassroom obsMost schoolsure staff effnt achieveme

ves were availincentives w

centives for talf of the schoy to examine g further dev

ss” in the wosideration. Bdopted compturnaround shools made

assroom teacturnaround t level where

ogy specialistement speciaed that the restaff for SIGes for at leas

N, INCENTI

etention of stg schools. Twinclude: (1) imhat help recruhers and princd school staffng the inclusi

chools develnce. Additionprincipal evalservation ands using the tu

fectiveness. Oent data in te

lable to the pwere almost altheir staff at ool sites in 2performanc

veloped and i

Page 26

ords of one py and large, t

petencies. Exschools fully some progre

hers were in and transform

e the LEA wa. The remain

alist, a contenelatively late npositions. In

t part of the

VES, AND 

taff who helpwo importanmplementinguit and retaincipals. WestEf. We also revion of studen

oped, but didnally, systemluation. Freqd an evaluatiournaround m

Only about a eacher evalua

principal at aplways tied to each school;

2010-11. The e evaluation implemented

principal, preturnaround samining the met this req

ess on this re

place, effortrmation schoas working toning sites hadnt specialist, anotification on some casesyear.

STAFF REM

p increase stunt elements ing strategies sun staff; and (2Ed gathered viewed the bnt data in sta

d not implemms related to tquently used on rubric ada

model workedthird of scho

ations.

pproximately student perf however, thsite visits Win greater de

d.

eventing prinschools werebenchmarkin

quirement by quirement.

ts lagged on fols. At threeo fill two posd yet to fill ona data speciaof SIGs awars, external pr

MOVAL 

udent achievn this procesuch as financ2) using qualidata related t

benchmarkingaff evaluation

ment, new syteacher evaluapproaches tapted from thd on adoptinools using th

y half of the formance. D

hese incentiveWestEd condu

etail to help M

ncipals from not successfng tools, we the end of th

filling new e schools, thesitions: the dine or more Salist, or a rds impactedoviders

vement and s that are cial incentiveity systems toto these areag tools data

n and informa

stems to uation were to teacher he work of

ng sets of he transforma

SIG schoolsDistricts and

es were ucts in 2011-MDE unders

ful in

he

e istrict

SIG

d how

es and o as

ation

ation

.

12 stand

PERFOR

PrincipalsSIG implstaff, withfew distriSIG impldistricts. Iimplemenchanged fspecificaladdition, principal

We examthe 22 schone excepprincipalsIncentiveof SIG m

The interappeared systems. Fwhether aperformathrough tdid not k

PERFOR

A numbethe prior place at 1Student asingle turteachers twith turnTwo addinew teachturnarounfound tha2010-11,

MANCE EV

s, serving as lementation. h the responsicts modifiedlementation. In one of thentation againfor 2010-11 tlly mentionedthree districtachieved a se

mined whethehools with avption, princips were about es were availa

middle school

rviews providto be no com

For examplea principal reance; and threthe districts’ now or were

MANCE EV

er of schools year. Observ2 schools. Si

academic grornaround schthat took mu

naround schoitional districher evaluationd model areat districts wibut only one

ALUATION,

the administWe asked hoses providing

d their procedIntervieweesese districts,

nst the grant pto include dad that students used a prinet of goals es

r there were vailable data,pal incentivetwice as like

able to princil principals.

ded limited inmmon eleme, five princip

emains in his ee other prinstandard emp

e unsure of th

ALUATION,

used the samving teachersix schools uswth was part

hool. The distultiple criteriaools were mocts with turnan systems th

e to use localith turnaroune district com

, INCENTIV

rative and inow districts mg insights intdures for prins referred to the review pplan. In the sata on studennt achievemenncipal reviewstablished at

specific ince, we found abs were tied to

ely at transforipals at half o

nsight into thent (i.e., criticpals told us th

or her positincipals indicaployment prohe criteria for

, INCENTIV

me approach s in the classrsed an evaluat of the evalutrict with thisa into accounving toward around schoo

hat included sly adopted cond schools m

mpleted it by

Page 27

ES, AND RE

nstructional lemonitored thto principal encipal evaluamodified prirocess at SIGsecond, the dnt achievement data were

w process thathe beginnin

entives in plabout half mao student perrmation schoof the SIG hi

he issue of prcal skills for rhat student pion; two stat

ated that the iocedures. Intr their remov

ES, AND RE

to evaluatingroom was theation rubric buation process turnaroundnt, including implementinols were negostudent perfoompetencies

made progresthe end of th

EMOVAL O

eaders at theihe performanevaluation. Oation to take incipal evaluaG schools incdistrict’s apprent. For six d

included in tt involved as

ng of the sch

ace for the prade incentiverformance. Iools compareigh schools c

rincipal remoremoval) inte

performance ted that the sissue of replaterestingly, sval.

EMOVAL O

g teachers in e most commbased on the ss at six transd school adopstudent achie

ng a similar potiating withormance data to measuress toward mehe year.

F PRINCIPA

ir schools, plnce of princip

Overall, it appinto accountation processcluded reviewroach to prin

districts, interthe evaluatiossessing howool year.

rincipals of Ss available toncentives maed to turnarocompared to

oval. Additionerwoven intois the key eleuperintendenacing principix principals

F TEACHER

n 2010-11 as tmon system owork of Chasformation spted a rubricevement. Th

process usingh teachers’ una. Finally, schs staff effectieeting this req

ALS 

lay a key rolepals and distrpears that vert the demandses in only twwing SIG ncipal evaluatrviewees on process. Inw well the

IG schools. o principals. Wade available

ound schoolsonly 29 perc

nally, there o the evaluatiement in decnt reviews thpals is handle

stated that th

S 

they had durof evaluationarlotte Daniechools and a

c for evaluatinhree other disg multiple crinions to devehools using thiveness. We quirement du

e in rict ry ds of wo

tion

n

For With to

s. cent

ion ciding heir ed hey

ring n, in elson. a ng stricts iteria. elop he

uring

The findiMost SIGstaff othemonetaryflexibilitydevelopmAccordinof negotilinking inincentiveplanned tschools, fincreasedincentive

As Exhibschools. FThis inclucoaches isupport aan issue b

PROFES

Achievingpractices transformdevelopmNational Orphano

During indata abou

ings on teachG schools areer than princiy and linked ty; serving as ament; workingng to interviewations with t

ncentives to ss planned thato offer incenfour of which

d student achis to staff in 2

bit 8 shows, tFour schoolsudes a procesn an effort to

and still are nbecause they

StrateUse StProcedUse a TeacheOther Use TrNo InfTotal 

SIONAL DE

g the improvof both teac

mation SIG mment aligned w

Staff Develos, 2009) high

nterviews witut the extent

her evaluatione in early stagipals were in to criteria otha committee g with studenwees, frequeneachers’ barg

student perfoat were contintives linked h were high sievement and2011-12 base

the district’s ss reported usss that identio improve in

not considerehad already

Exhibit 8: Sgy tandard Districdure is Being DCoaching or Deer Replacemen

ransformation formation Avai

EVELOPME

vement goals hers and prin

models call fowith the scho

opment Counhlighted featu

th school andto which bo

n systems miges of putting

place at 13 oher than studleader, deparnts during exntly the effecgaining unitsormance in thingent, at leaexclusively t

schools. Tend other critered solely on c

standard proing a coachinifies weak or nstruction. Teed effective. Sreplaced 50 p

Strategies In

t ProceduresDevelopedevelopmental nt Has Occurre

Model—Replalable

NT AND CO

of SIGs reqncipals. The or staff to recool’s instructncil (NSDC; ures of effect

d district stafth teachers a

Page 28

irror those ong incentive anof the 28 schdent achievemrtment head, xtended learnctive date of . A number ohe 2011-12 scast in part, onto student acn schools planria. Howevercriteria other

ocedure for reng or developstruggling te

eachers are reStaff from onpercent of th

nvolved in R

Approached

acement Not a

OACHING

quires providirequirementceive high qutional prograDarling-Ham

tive teacher p

ff working wiand principal

n teacher incnd reward sy

hools. These iment, includi or SIG spec

ning time; or the incentiveof schools wchool year. O

n student achchievement wnned to offerr, most schoothan studen

emoving teacpmental appreachers and peplaced onlyne site claimeheir staff.

Removing TNum

n Issue

ing learning ss for both th

uality, job-emam. A recent mmond, Weiprofessional d

ith the SIG ps participated

centives and ystems in placincentives wing: allowingcialist; particicollaboratinges had been d

were developinOverall, 15 schievement. Twere five tranr incentives rols were still

nt performanc

chers was in roach to remprovides suppy after they haed teacher re

Teachers mber of Schoo

10 74221228 

supports thahe turnaroundmbedded prof

report publii, Andree, Ricdevelopment

program, Wed in professio

reward systece. Incentive

were usually g for scheduliipating in stag with colleadelayed becang plans for chools had he only sites

nsformation related to boplanning to ce.

place at ten moving teache

port from SIave received emoval was n

ols 

t strengthen d and fessional shed by the chardson, & t.

estEd gathereonal develop

ms. es for

ing ff

agues. ause

that

th offer

ers. IG

not

the

ed pment

and receivasked sepreceived sinterchanwe paid adecided wwas provi

WestEd sprofessioconsiderecoaching level of pmedium,

Schools rcovered mdevelopmor specifiprofessio“instructi

Schools rcoaching.as extensiprofessioprofessiolimited.

Overall, 9developmprofessiodevelopmfor profemedium ocoaching and princprofessio

TEACHE

Exhibit 9both the

ved coachingparate questioshowed that

ngeably. In ouattention to thwhether the sided.

staff reviewenal developm

ed both the ractivities and

professional dor low.

received highmultiple cont

ment could beic academic inal learning ional rounds”

ranked as me. However, thive. For examnal developmnal developm

93 percent ofment, and 75

nal developmment to suppossional develon coaching provided to

cipals to receinal developm

R PROFESS

9 shows the leSIG model a

g to work effons about bosome staff u

ur analyses, whe context wsupport was p

d the interviement and coarange of topicd how frequedevelopment

h ratings whetent or topic e related to snterventionscommunities” conducted

edium had stahese schoolsmple, professment or coacment or coac

f schools werpercent of sc

ment. Principort SIG efforlopment. Sevprovided to principals. Tive a modera

ment and coa

IONAL DEV

evel of profeand school le

fectively withoth professionuse the termswhen someonwithin which professional

ews with schaching the teac or content ently they oct and coachin

n staff reporareas, and copecific areas

s. Teachers ats. Some of thby principals

aff who repo differed fro

sional develohing less freqhing when in

re rated as eichools were pals at two scrts. In additio

venty-five perteachers, and

These results ate to substanaching.

VELOPMENT

essional deveevel. Teacher

Page 29

h students annal developm“coaching”

ne spoke aborespondents developmen

hool and distrachers and pareas coverecurred. Base

ng that staff r

rted participaoaching occuof instructio

t some of thehe coaching as or staff.

orted receivinm high-rank

opment coverquently. Schonterviews ind

ther high or rated as eithe

chools reporton, schools rrcent of SIGd 57 percent demonstrate

ntial level of

T 

lopment teacrs received eit

nd implementment and coaand “profess

out these term talked abou

nt or coachin

rict staff to dprincipals at Sed by the proed on this holreceived at ea

ating in profeurred on a regon, data use, ese schools aalso included

ng professionked schools bred fewer topools receiveddicated that s

medium on er high or meted receivingreceived lowe

G schools werwere rated e

e that SIG grsupport thro

chers receivether a high o

t school refoaching. The asional develoms as if they t the support

ng based on h

determine theSIG schools ofessional devlistic review, ach SIG scho

essional devegular basis. Tpositive beh

also participad regular walk

nal developmbecause the supics or teachd a ranking osuch support

teacher profedium on pri

g little or no per ratings forre rated eitheeither high orrants allowedough a comb

ed, breaking oor medium le

orm strategiesanswers we opment” are synonymt received. W

how the supp

e level of received. Wevelopment anwe rated the

ool as either

elopment thaThe professiohavior supporated in kthroughs or

ment and upports wereers received f low on

t existed, but

fessional incipal professional r coaching ther high or r medium on

d both teachebination of

out the resultevel of

s. We

mous, We port

e nd e high,

at onal rts,

r

e not

was

han

n ers

ts by

professiomeans grinterviewputting a

There wethe turnarwith highwhere teaby schooldevelopm

Level 

High MediuLow None Data NAvailabTotal 

Teachers curriculumbehavior Professioin and outhe schooobservatidevelopmspecialist

PRINCIP

PrincipalsBoth ovelevel thanprincipals

nal developmants allowed

wees, the singlcontract in p

ere some diffround versus

h levels of proachers more ll level, teache

ment than tea

Ex

TurnarN (2 (2

m  7 (70 (0 (

Not ble  0 (

9 (1

received prom and contenmanagemen

onal developmutside Michigol year, meetions or instru

ment. Howevat the site, o

PAL PROFES

s did not receerall and for en a high or los who indicat

ment at all busignificant le

le school thaplace with its

ferences in levs transformatofessional delikely receiveers at high sc

achers at elem

xhibit 9: Lev

Interound %)  

Trans

22)  178)  70) 0) 

0) 

00)  19

ofessional devnt standards,t, peer obserment occurregan, faculty mings of schoouctional rounver, other proor a district-le

SSIONAL DE

eive as exteneach of the reow level of prted they rece

ut one of the evels of trainat scored lows chosen exte

vels of teachtion reform mevelopment wed a medium chools were mmentary or m

vel of Teach

ervention Msformation N (%) 

E

10 (53)7 (37)1 (5)0 (0)

1 (5) 

9 (100)

velopment in, supporting rvation, usinged in multiplemeetings heldol-level profends. Frequentoviders includevel curriculu

EVELOPMEN

nsive professieform modelrofessional deived no prof

Page 30

27 schools fning in suppow for teacher pernal provide

her professionmodels. The was over twiclevel of prof

more likely tomiddle school

her Professio

Model and ScElementary 

N (%) 1 (25)1 (25)1 (25)0 (0)

1 (25) 

4 (100)

n a variety ofstruggling st

g data, data we venues such

d prior to theessional learntly, a site’s exded a school’um or data sp

NT 

ional developls, principals

development.fessional dev

for which daort of school professional

er.

nal developmpercentage o

ce the percenfessional devo receive a hls.

onal Develo

chool LevelMiddle N (%) 2 (29)5 (71)0 (0)0 (0)

0 (0) 

7 (100) 1

f areas includtudents, workwarehouses, ah as state SIG

e school year ning communxternal provid’s Intermediapecialist.

pment as teac were more l Unlike with

velopment wh

ata were availreform. Accdevelopmen

ment betweenof transformntage of turnvelopment. Lhigh level of p

opment by

High N (%) 

K‐N 

8 (50) 1 (8 (50)0 (0) 0 0 (0) 0 

0 (0)  0 

16 (100)  1 (

ding: instructking with Enand instructioG meetings, or scheduled

nities, and thder conducteate School D

chers, as sholikely to recei

h teachers, thhatsoever du

lable. This fincording to nt had difficu

n schools usimation schoolnaround schoLooking at reprofessional

‐12  (%) 

TotaN (%

100)  12 (430  14 (50(0)  1 (4)(0)  0 (0)

(0)  1 (4)

100)  28 (10

tional strateginglish learneronal rounds. conferences d regularly du

hrough peer ed profession

District, the SI

own in Exhibive a mediumere were two

uring 2010-11

nding

ulty

ing ls

ools, sults

l) 3)0)))

) 

00)

ies, rs,

both uring

nal IG

bit 10. m o 1.

 Level 

High MediumLow None Data NoAvailablTotal 

Professioand princas readinguse, and ttheir roleimplemen

Principalsleadershipmeetings,regularly meetings grantees.

External principalsprovided professioschool’s I

Exhibit 1principalsteachers, high levelthemselveprofessioprofessio

Exh

TurnaN 0

m  6 2 1 

ot e  0

9 (

onal developmcipals participg/literacy, mtechnology. As as leaders antation, budg

s received prp academies , which incluscheduled mfor providin

providers wes specifically training for nal developmIntermediate

1 provides ds received. Thas noted earll of professioes. Additionanal developmnal developm

hibit 10: Lev

InteSIG Mod

around (%)  

Tran

 (0) (67) (22) (11) 

 (0) 

100) 

ment for prinpated in the s

mathematics, aAdditional prat their schoogeting, leader

rofessional desponsored b

uded an orienmeetings durinng informatio

ere a frequenreferring to principals an

ment at other School Dist

data comparinhe exhibit shlier. Only ononal developmally, there wement during 2ment.

vel of Princi

ervention Mdel nsformation N (%) 4 (21)11 (58)1 (5)1 (5)

2 (11) 

19 (100)

ncipals focussame professand other currofessional dols and as marship, and tea

evelopment tby MDE. Almntation meetinng the schooon they found

nt source of pthe Principal

nd other staffr conferencestrict.

ng the levels hows that prine-third of prment also ha

ere two schoo2010-11 even

Page 31

ipal Profess

Model and Sc

Elementary N (%) 0 (0)0 (0)1 (25)1 (25)

2 (50) 

4 (100)

ed on a rangsional develorriculum con

development anagers of SIacher evaluat

through manmost 50 perceng during thl year for SIGd helpful and

principal prol Fellowship f members frs in the state

of professioncipals receivrincipals at scad a high leveols where then though the

sional Devel

chool LevelSchool LeMiddle N (%) 0 (0)

7 (100)0 (0)0 (0)

0 (0) 

7 (100)

ge of areas. Inpment. Thes

ntent areas, infor principal

IG activities: tion.

ny different sent of principe SIG applicG grantees. Pd allowing th

fessional devat Michigan

rom their sitee or from a re

onal developmved less profchools whereel of professie principal reeir teachers re

lopment by

evelHigh  N (%)  N4 (25)  010 (63)  02 (13)  00 (0) 1 

0 (0)  0

16 (100)  1 

n many instanse areas inclunstructional sls included armonitoring

sources includpals mention

cation procesPrincipals val

hem to learn f

velopment, wState Univer

es. Principalsegional group

ment that teafessional deve teachers paional developeported havineceived a hig

TotN (%K‐12  

N (%) 0 (0)  4 (10 (0)  17 (60 (0)  3 (1(100)  2 (7

0 (0)  2 (7

(100)  28 (1

nces, teacheruded topics sustrategies, dareas that reflgrant

ding the prinned these ss as well as lued these from other

with many rsity (MSU) ts received p, frequently

achers and velopment tharticipated in pment ng no gh level of

tal %) 

14)61)11)7)

7) 

100)

rs uch

ata lected

ncipal

that

a

han a

Exhi

Level of TProfessio

High Medium Low Data Not Total 

TEACHE

Coachingdevelopmof schoolteaching pfeedback implemenTeachers data coac

We reviewreceived. teacher coabout anoof school

E

Level 

High MediuLow None Data NAvailabTotal 

A compapercent oschools, cteacher coschools. E

ibit 11: Com

Teacher nal Developm

Available 

R COACHIN

g was an impment. Contenls. Coaches gpractices in tdesigned to

nting an interat a few sch

ch focused on

wed the interOur review oaching at SIother 39 percls.

xhibit 12: Le

TurnarN (1 (1

m  5 (52 (20 (

Not ble  1 (1

9 (1

rison of schoof transformacoaching wasoaching at a Elementary s

mparison—L

ent  N(

2 000

2 (

NG 

ortant way thnt specialists, generally worthe classroomimprove teacrvention theyools receivedn ensuring te

rviews with sas displayed IG schools. Ocent had a m

evel of TeacSIG Mode

round %)  

Trans

11) 56) 22) 0) 

11) 

00)  1

ools based onation schoolss more likely greater perce

schools tende

Levels of TeaLevel of

one (%) 

LN

(17)  0 (0)  3  (0)  0 (0)  0100) 3 (

hat teachers ausually in lit

rked with team. These coachers’ skills. y learned whd support froeachers could

school and diin Exhibit 12Overall, 36 p

medium level.

cher Coachil sformation N (%) 9 (47)6 (32)3 (16)0 (0)

1 (5) 

19 (100)

n reform mos but at only at a medium

entage of mided to have m

Page 32

acher and Pf Principal Prof

Low  N (%) 

MeN

0 (0) 6(21) 110 (0) 00 (0) 0(100) 17

at SIG schooeracy or matchers individches would tCoaches souen participat

om a data or d use data to

istrict staff to2 found ther

percent had aThere was a

ing by Inter

Elementary N (%) 0 (0)2 (50)1 (25)0 (0)

1 (25) 

4 (100)

odel shows a 11 percent o

m level. An anddle and high

medium or low

Principal Professional Deve

edium  N (%)  N

6 (50) 41 (79)0 (0)0 (0)7 (100) 4

ols received jthematics, prdually or in smthen observeught to ensurting in profestechnology cfocus their w

o identify there was generaa high level oa low level of

rvention MoSchool LevMiddle N (%) 3 (43)1 (14)2 (29)0 (0)

1 (14) 

7 (100) 1

high level ofof turnaroundnalysis by schh schools cow levels of te

ofessional Delopment 

High N (%) 

DatAvaN

4 (33) 00 (0) 00 (0) 1 0 (0) 1(

4 (100) 2 

ob-embedderovided suppmall groups be teachers andre teachers wssional develocoach. In somwork with stu

e level of coaally a mediumof teacher coaf coaching at

odel and SchvelHigh N (%) 

K‐N 

7 (44) 0 7 (44) 1 (2 (13) 0 0 (0) 0 

0 (0)  0 

16 (100)  1 (

f teacher coacd schools. Athool level shompared to eleacher coach

Developmen

ToN (

ta Not ailable N (%) 0 (0)  12 (0 (0)  14 ((100)  1 (1(100)  1 (1(100)  28 (

ed professionort at a majoby modeling d provide

were appropriopment. me instancesudents.

aching teachem or high levaching while only 18 perc

hool Level

TotaN (%‐12  

(%) (0)  10 (36100)  11 (39(0)  5 (18(0)  0 (0)

(0)  2 (7)

100)  28 (10

ching at 47 t turnaround ows high levlementary

hing.

nt

otal (%) 

100)100)100)100)100)

nal ority g

iately

, a

ers vel of

cent

l ) 

6)9)8))

) 

00)

vels of

PRINCIP

Like teachcoaching involved classroompositionslevel SIGfrom theiinput very

In generaprincipalsamount othey receimore like

E

Level 

High MediuLow None Data NAvailabTotal 

There areschool prwhere priprincipalsit is not in

There is athe level oprincipalsthemselvereceived aprincipal

PAL COACHI

hers, principfocused on haligning curr

m. Principals . External pr

G specialists cir SIG monity helpful.

al, principals s received a hof coaching oived no coac

ely than turna

Exhibit 13: L

TurnarN (0 (

m  5 (52 (21 (1

Not ble  1 (1

9 (1

e apparent dirincipals are mincipals mores (43 percentndicative of a

a stronger relof professions at schools wes. When teaa medium levcoaching.

ING 

als received chelping princriculum, instralso received

roviders, distcoached princtor. While pe

received lesshigh level of occurred at juching during around schoo

Level PrincipSIG Model

round %)  

Trans

0)  556)  622)  411)  3

11) 

00)  19

fferences betmore likely toe likely receivt) received noa pattern in o

lationship benal developmwith high levachers receivevel also. Low

coaching to scipals supporruction, and d coaching orict-level coacipals. In somerhaps not co

s coaching thcoaching sup

ust over twic2010-11. Asols to have h

pal Coachinl sformation N (%)  

E

5 (26)6 (32)4 (21)3 (16)

1 (5) 

9 (100)

tween middleo receive a hved a mediumo coaching. Tone LEA.

etween the lement both grovels of teacheed a medium

w levels of tea

Page 33

support theirrt effective imassessment an effective le

aches, retiredme cases, prinoaching per se

han the teachpport at onlye as many scwith teacher

high levels of

ng by Interv

Elementary N (%)  0 (0)1 (25)2 (50)0 (0)

1 (25) 

4 (100)

e and high schigh level of cm level of coThese school

evel of coachioups receiveder coaching al

m level of coaacher coachin

r work at SIGmplementatioas well as moeadership andd school admncipals indicae, many princ

ers at their scy 18 percent ochools. Fourtr coaching, trf principal co

vention ModSchool Leve

Middle N (%) 0 (0)4 (57)0 (0)3 (43)

0 (0) 

7 (100) 1

chools relatecoaching com

oaching. Interls are located

ing teachers d. As Exhibilso received

aching, aboutng were gene

G schools. Thon of the SIG

onitoring instd general sup

ministrators, aated they rec

cipals found t

chools. As Eof schools. Ateen percent ransformatioaching.

del and SchoelHigh N (%)  

K‐N 

5 (31) 0 5 (31) 1 (4 (25) 0 1 (6) 0 

1 (6)  0 

16 (100)  1 (

d to principampared to mirestingly, thr

d in different

and principait 14 shows, 5a high level ot two-thirds oerally related

he content oG. This area truction in thpport for theand the schooceived “coachtheir monito

Exhibit 13 shoA medium of principals

on schools are

ool Level

TotaN (%‐12  

(%)  (0)  5 (18100)  11 (39(0)  6 (21(0)  4 (14

(0)  2 (7)

100)  28 (10

al coaching. Hiddle schoolsee middle schdistricts, and

als received th50 percent ofof coaching of their princto low levels

of the

he eir ol-hing” rs’

ows,

s said e

l ) 

8)9)1)4)

) 

00)

High s, hool d so

han f the

cipals s of

LevelCoach

High MediLow Data Total 

MONITO

Monitorinparticularresourcesnational smodels, bimplementheir propschool tumonitorinperforma

MONITO

In this seand frequdistricts eprincipal monthly participatquarterly of schoolperceptiolevels, busection. Findicator

IMPLEM

Data fromthe implestrategies

Exhibit

 of Teacher hing 

um 

Not Available 

ORING BY D

ng implemenr, continuouss associated wspotlight on Sboth districtsntation moniposed plan, i

urnaround or ng of SIG imance.

ORING SIG I

ction we exauency) and hoengaged in somonitoring ror quarterly ttion in classroreports subm

ls monitoredon of the schout notable difFinally, all schof implemen

MENTATION

m 14 districtsementation o and compon

t 14: Compa

None  (%) 

2 (20) 0 (0) 2 (40) 0 (0) 4 (14) 

DISTRICTS  

ntation is a kes and significwith the granSIGs. Althou

s and schoolsitoring. Monimplement thtransformati

mplementatio

IMPLEMEN

amine two eleow schools anome degree oranged from team meetingoom observamitted by prin student atteool as indica

fferences did hool principantation progr

N MONITOR

s (representinf SIG plans. nents were im

arison—LevLev

LowN (%

0 (03 (273 (600 (06 (21

AND SCHO

ey componenant monitori

nt, the complugh schools ws would be exitoring would

he SIG plan wion as propon while the f

TATION  

ements of mond districts mof monitoring

conducting wgs to discussations as a pancipals or schndance and btors of progremerge betw

als monitoredress.

ING: DISTR

ng 24 schoolThese distric

mplemented,

Page 34

vel of Teachvel of Principa

w  %) 

MediN (%

) 3 (37) 7 (60) 0 (0) 1 (51) 11 (3

OOLS   

nt of successing is critical exities of SIGwere implemxpected to cod allow schoowith fidelity, osed. The nexfinal portion

onitoring: whmonitored (i.eg SIG implemwalkthrough progress. Mart of school-hool-based Sbehavior, graress. No diffeween models d progress on

RICTS 

s) indicated dcts examined, including pr

her and Princal Coaching

ium %) 

HighN (%

0) 5 (5064) 0 (00) 0 (00) 0 (039) 5 (18

sful grant mabecause of t

G plans, the menting the tuonduct high-ols to know and achieve

xt portion ofdiscusses the

hat was monie., methods).mentation. Fhs multiple tim

Monitoring by-based instruSIG specialisant finances, ferences were

and are discn student per

district-level d the fidelity rofessional d

cipal Coach

h %) 

Data NAvailabN (%

0) 0 (0)) 1 (9)) 0 (0)) 1(50)8) 2 (7)

anagement. Fthe intense ficondensed tiurnaround anlevel and intif they remaimilestones n

f this section e monitoring

itored (includ Overall, all

Frequency andmes a week ty districts ranuctional teamt. In additionand parent a

e observed amcussed at the rformance go

engagement with which d

development,

hing

TotalN (%)

Not ble ) )  10 (100)  11 (100)  5 (100))  2 (100))  28 (100

For SIGs in iscal and matimeline, and nd transformense in on track wnecessary fordiscusses

g of student

ding data souschools and d type of to participatinged from ms to reviewinn, a small numand student mong schoolend of this oals as an

in monitorindifferent SIG, professiona

)))))

terial the

mation

with r

urces

ng in

ng mber

l

ng G al

learning cprogress plans from

• SI

• P

• P

• C

• O

• R

The frequthe sourcthe SIG scoaches wongoing mreviewingstrategiesdistrict resome casschool bo

IMPLEM

Data fromfive for w2010-11 stwo otherreliance o

Data indistrategiesassessmenindicatorsabout theindicator teachers doffered fe

Principalsdistricts, b

communitieson implemenm a variety o

IG coaches

Participation i

Participation i

Classroom ob

Observations

Reports from

uency with wce of data useschools moniwere on schomanner: partg timelines, a. Governanc

epresentationes, school staoard on a mo

MENTATION

m 23 schoolswhich we do nschool year ar cases, we don district mo

icated princip as districts (nts, instructis of school ceir perceptionof implemen

during classreedback.

s gathered inbut also from

, and assessmntation as weof data source

in governanc

in school-bas

bservations

of professio

school staff

which district ed for monitoitored implem

ool grounds oticipating in tnd generally

ce board meen (e.g., governaff or externaonthly or qua

N MONITOR

s indicated thnot have evid

and was unfaid not intervonitoring of

pals examine(e.g., profession); howeverulture and clns of school.ntation progroom instruct

nsight into SIm school-bas

ments. A fewell. These dises, including

ce boards and

sed meetings

nal developm

or external p

staff engageoring. Overamentation onon a weekly bteam meetingassisting wit

etings were hnance boardsal providers arterly basis.

ING: SCHO

he principal mdence of momiliar with w

view school pSIG implem

d fidelity of Sional developr, a few princlimate. Five p A few princress. In one stion and then

G implemened coaches (

Page 35

w of them motricts gathere:

d instructiona

s (with teache

ment

providers

ed in monitorll, districts thn a monthly tbasis workinggs, observingth the implemeld a fixed nus occurred fosubmitted re

OLS 

monitored thnitoring, in t

whether SIG principals. In entation inst

SIG implemepment, profecipals also exprincipals nocipals also focschool, the pn, as a group

ntation not on(either instruc

onitored finaned insight int

al audits

ers, principal

ring implemehat containedto quarterly bg with princig classrooms,mentation of umber of tim

our times pereports on sch

he implementtwo schools tplans were mone school,

tead of site-le

entation by fessional learnxamined impoted they survcused on tea

principal indic, peer teache

nly from the ctional coach

nces as an into the implem

ls, and other

entation varied approximatbasis. Some dipals and teac, reviewing S

f professionalmes per year r year at five hool progress

tation of the the principalmonitored thprincipal fee

evel monitor

focusing on tning communlementation veyed studencher instructcated they viers reviewed

same data sohes or mento

ndicator of mentation of

staff)

ed dependingtely two-thirddistrict SIG chers in an SIG plans, l developmenand includedschools). In

s to the distri

SIG plan. Ol arrived afterhe prior year. edback impliering.

the same SIGnities, progress usin

nts and/or pation as an deo recordedthe videotap

ources as ors),

f SIG

g on ds of

nt d

ict or

Of the r the In

ed a

G

ng arents

d e and

departmelearning cportfoliosfrequencySIG coacimplemenprincipalsthrough tmonitor omonitor i

By and laturnarounindicatorsother impinstructiomore perindicators

MONITO

This sectispecific sand schooinform in

DATA CO

PrincipalsachievemPrincipalsuse of thethe assessin the proachievem

Twenty-sin 2010-1going if thand/or trsources. AMME, orPLAN, A

ent/content/communitiess). Similar toy with whichches, meetingntation and es stated they team meetingon a weekly timplementati

arge, minor dnd and transfs of student pplementationonal audits), brformance-rels of impleme

ORING STUD

ion reviews htudent assessols monitor S

nstruction.

OLLECTED T

s and specialiment, as well a

s generally haese data to msments and pocess of educ

ment gaps bas

six principals 11 by using eihe principal ried to monitApproximater both. All pr

ACT, SRI Rea

/grade meetin, teacher survthe frequenc

h principals mgs, governancengaged in mmonitor som

gs, walkthrouto monthly bion on a mon

differences emformation scperformance

n indicators sbut the focuslated. Transfentation, incl

DENT LEAR

how districts sment data thSIG impleme

TO MONITO

ists were askas the assistanad an import

monitor studeperformance cating, facilitased on perfor

stated they mither state tesused benchmtor student leely two-thirdrincipals also ading 180, M

ngs, school imveys, and docy of district

monitored imce boards). H

monitoring onme aspect of ughs, observabasis throughnthly to quar

merged in thechools. Princie as their stratill occurred s of implemeformation schuding parent

RNING AND 

and schoolshat were collentation, and

OR LEARNIN

ked about thence they protant role in anent learning adata collecteating, or genrmance data.

monitored ststs or alterna

mark assessmearning and as reported thused other s

MAP, DIBEL

Page 36

mprovementcumentationengagement

mplementationHowever, prinn a more reguSIG implemations, or con

h similar methrterly basis.

e monitoringipals at turna

ategy to moniat turnaroun

entation data hools, on thet and student

ACHIEVEM

monitored slected, and hod help teache

NG AND AC

eir role in movided teachenalyzing studand achievemed, but often erally workin

tudent learninative assessm

ments throughachievement hat their schostudent asses

LS, Study Isla

t teams, walkn of work pert in monitorin varied acconcipals had rular basis tha

mentation on nversations whods. The re

g of SIG planaround schooitor SIG imp

nd schools ancollected by

e other handt surveys and

MENT  

student learnow these dat

ers monitor s

CHIEVEMEN

onitoring studers in using ddent data andment. Speciali

functioned ang with teach

ng and achievments. The aphout the schothrough mul

ool used statessments incluand, Workkey

kthroughs, prrformance (eng implemen

ording to datready access tan districts. Fa daily to wewith staff; sixemaining prin

n implementaols reported mplementationnd was compy turnaround , incorporate

d videotaped

ning and achita were used student acade

NT 

dent learningdata to informd guiding discists were genas an assistanhers to identi

vement on approach was ool year on altiple perspece assessmentuding ACT Eys, QRI, DRA

rofessional e.g., teacher ntation, the ta source (e.gto data abou

For example, eekly basis eitx stated they ncipals stated

ation betweemonitoring

n. Monitoringprehensive (eprincipals w

ed more instruction.

ievement, theto help distr

emic progres

g and m instructioncussions on t

nerally aware nt to the prinify student

an on-going bconsidered o

a regular basictives and s such as ME

EXPLORE, ARA, Q-Test,

g., t eight

ther

d they

n the

g of e.g., was

e ricts s and

n. the of

ncipal

basis on-s

EAP, ACT

Acceleratassessmenthe three achievembenchmaFor examassessmeneight gavefrequentlyattendanc

We also aand curricassessmenaction wathat they Feedbacklead teachbetween aprincipalsand guide

INSTRUC

SIG requstudent leschools ininstructiowith teachconversatmeetings)teachers cdata. In aobservatiprincipalsneed. Fin(e.g., Clasand use d

THE DIS

Interviewlearning a

ted Reader, Rnts. The ACTACT tests. O

ment on an onrks. The freq

mple, more thnts at least twe student tesy, such as quce and behav

asked school cular contentnts designed as necessary ttook additio

k revealed a phers, professiassessments s also reportee the alignme

CTIONAL DE

uirements speearning is so ndicated the on: twenty indhers about thtions; nine re) where teachcreate lessonaddition, seveons to ensurs indicated th

nally, several ss-A, DataDidata to inform

TRICT ROLE

ws with districand achievem

Read NaturallT tests were One principan-going basisquency with whan half of thwice a year. Ots in a pre-, m

uarterly or twvior data in ad

representativt. Respondento be aligned

to ensure alignal steps to e

primary methional learningand state staed using outsent process.

ECISIONS A

ecify that onethat findingsprincipal or dicated the phe identified eported that thers must rev

n plans or actieral of these re the lesson hey providedschools indicirector, Succem instruction

E IN MONIT

ct administrament on an on

ly, STAR Remost widely

al stated the ss in 2010-11 bwhich the as

he principals One administmid-, and po

wice a month.ddition to stu

ves how theynts from a nud with the cugnment. Howensure alignmhod principalg communiti

andards and tside provider

AND GUIDA

e of the key rs can be usedspecialist pla

principal or thstudent achitheir school view assessmion plans basschools repoplan was del

d tutoring or ocated they relessLine, Exa

n.

TORING STU

ators indicaten-going basis

Page 37

ading or Matutilized; 15 s

school was nbecause the ysessment datnoted their ttered student

ost-year appro. Finally, somudent achiev

y ensured assumber of schurriculum andwever, an almment of assesls used for enies, or departtake the necers to evaluate

NCE BASED

reasons that sd to guide insayed a role inhe specialist evement gapinstituted pro

ment results; ased on the ar

orted that thelivered as infoone-on-one ilied on suppomView, Grad

UDENT LEA

ed that the ms in 2010-11,

th, Pre-Campschools indic

not able to moyear was devta were collecteachers admt tests in a proach; and eig

me schools alvement data.

sessments wehools indicated state stand

most equal nussments withnsuring aligntment heads essary steps te assessments

D ON STUDE

schools are tstruction. In

n ensuring assshared and d

ps through orocesses (e.g.,and eight indreas of need eir principal cformed by assinstruction toort software de Book) to

ARNING AND

majority of dis, meaning th

pus, and comcated they usonitor studen

voted to devected varied a

ministered altere- and post-ght others uslso monitored

ere aligned toed they admi

dards so that umber of schh curriculum nment was rec

to examine tto address gas, identify ga

ENT ASSESS

to closely moall, respondesessment datdiscussed datrganized mee, team or dep

dicated their sas identified conducted clsessment dato the targetedata managehelp them co

D ACHIEVE

stricts monitoe district man

mmon classrosed at least onnt learning aneloping across schoolernative stud-test manner;ed the tests md student

o state standainistered no additiona

hools indicateand standardcruiting coacthe alignmenps. Two

aps in curricu

SMENT DAT

onitor progreents from 22ta informed ta continuousetings or gropartment school helpeby assessme

lassroom ta, and two od students inement serviceompile, man

MENT  

ored studentnaged and

oom ne of nd

ls. dent ; more

ards

al ed ds. ches, nt

ulum,

TA  

ess in 2

sly up

ed ent

other n es age,

t

analyzed guidance Overall, 1results tore-designadministrinstructioformative

The methexample, to monitomanagemperformaand align staff to tr

Data alsoAll five otransform

SUCCES

At the enfirst year student atangible iimplementhese is d

NOTED S

The mostappreciabwere to thteachers rfocused tnot necesstudent astudent-lecompared

student assesto align asse

12 districts (r make data-ding curriculurators sharedon. In additioe and summa

hods used to one district

or student pement and asseance, engage

student asserack student

o indicated thof the schoolsmation model

SES AND O

nd of each intof the SIG. Tttitudes towamprovementntation were

discussed in d

SUCCESSES

t common suble change inhe effect thatrealized that to a more stussarily part ofchievement. ed projects ad to previous

ssment data, essment data representing driven decisioum to be bettd their analyseon, four of thative student

monitor stud(representingerformance. Oessment systeteachers with

essments withassessment d

hat five districs representedl.

OBSTACLES

terview, indivThe most coard school ants in student district-level

detail below.

S IN THE FIR

uccess in yearn school climat both studenthe SIG mea

udent-focusedf their job deFor studentsnd initiativess years.

helped schowith state sta22 schools) uons about cuter aligned wies of student

hese districts assessments

dent learningg five schoolOther districems, such as h assessmenth state standadata and exam

cts engaged id by these dis

 IN THE  FIR

viduals were ommon succend learning, iachievement

l bureaucracy

RST YEAR 

r one, mentioate and student and teacheant “it was nod environmeescriptions, as, this manifes, and fewer d

Page 38

ools and teachandards on aused a variety

urriculum, incith state stant assessment were continu or re-align in

g and achieves) relied on g

cts (representDataDirecto

t data to impards. The othmine trends i

in minimal tostricts were h

RST YEAR O

asked about esses mentionncreased colt. The most cy, union diffi

oned by respents’ attitudeers attitudes ot business a

ent, teachers tand teachers bested itself indisciplinary i

hers understaa regular basiy of benchmcluding identndards. Most

data with teauously workinstruction.

ement data vgovernance bting eight schor or ExamVrove their unher districts sin student ac

o no monitorhigh schools

OF SIG IMP

t the biggest sned were challaboration amcommonly ciiculties, and t

pondents fromes about schoshifted in a p

as usual,” schtook extra timbecame even

n increased eninfractions du

and the data,is throughou

marking tools tifying gaps inof the distric

achers to heling with teac

varied across board and inshools) emplo

View, to moninderstandingseemed to de

chievement.

ring of studeimplementin

PLEMENTA

successes andanges in schomong stakehited barriers time constrai

m 18 schoolsool. Most of positive direchools shifted me to perforn more commngagement inuring the firs

, and provideut the school

and the staten curriculumct SIG lp teachers inhers to devel

districts. Forstructional au

oyed online ditor student

g of student nepend on sch

ent performang the

TION 

d obstacles inool climate an

holders, and to SIG ints. Each of

s, was an these commection. Specififrom a teach

rm tasks that mitted to raisn school, most year of SIG

ed year. e test

m and

nform lop

r udits

data

needs, hool

nce.

n the nd

f

ents ically, her-were

sing ore G

An additiby interviand othersupports,shared lea

Another benchmaThese imschools eremoved

NOTED O

When askpertainedrepresentobstacle aschools wschools wof delays from the staff that that they claimed thpromises tremendoclosing ththe schooyear-one

These diswhen inteschool stanot impedprovided requestedMDE puencouragcontrol o

In additioimplemen

ional reporteiewees from r staff throug, but also peradership role

commonly cirk assessmen

mprovements,even in cases

from the list

OBSTACLES

ked about thed to bureaucrting 13 SIG sat turnaroundwhere about 4were in a sing

in the releasdistrict, bothwere in the Scould not sphat the distriregarding pu

ously. A schohe SIG schoool did not cloSIG plan wa

strict-related erviewees weaff asked forde SIG implefeedback to

d assistance inshing district

ging districts tf the funding

on to impedimnting SIG be

d success waa dozen scho

gh team teachrtained to inces.

ited success wnts such as th, which were when the res

t of persisten

S IN THE FIR

e most formiratic hurdles oschools mentd schools, wh40 percent cigle large distre of SIG funh of which leSIG plans fo

pend down alict simply wourchasing, anool specialist ol in which shose, the fact tas implement

impedimentere asked abor MDE to doementation. this effect, s

ncluded: MDts to follow tto allow pring from the di

ments due toecause some r

as an increaseools. Most frhing, professcreased coop

was improvehe ACT, or gnoted by res

sults were nontly lowest-ac

RST YEAR 

idable obstacor impedimetioned these here two-thirited it. This mrict. The majonds as well ased to substanor year one. Tll the funds aould not provnd that conseclaimed thathe worked anthat the fundted.

s and hurdleout additionao more to levPrincipals or

six of which rDE helping bthe agreemenncipals more istricts and a

o district actirequirements

Page 39

e in collaborarequently, thisional learnineration betw

ement in studgrowth on staspondents frot sufficient fchieving scho

cles in the firents at the distypes of probrds cited thismay be due toority of respos lengthy andntial delays inThus, their SIallocated for vide the needequently the pt, at one poinnd SIG fund

ds had been f

s also explainal supports thverage its authr school specresided in twreak down d

nts they madefreedoms an

allowing SIG

on and inactis necessitated

ation among is involved co

ng communitween administ

dent achievemandardized arom 14 schoofor the schooools.

rst year, the mstrict level. Inblems. This

s issue compao the fact thaondents who

d multi-step an receipt of teIG plans werthe year. For

ded support, principal’s fle

nt during the ds were frozefrozen meant

n the most cohey would likhority over dcialists from ewo school disdistrict barriere in the SIG

nd flexibilitiesschools to h

tion, respondd negotiation

g stakeholdersollaboration ties, and infotration and s

ment as meassessments sols, tended tools to make A

most frequenn all, respondseemed to beared to transat four of the

o identified thapproval procechnologies, re not fully imr example, onthat it madeexibility was year, the dis

en by the distt that only a p

ommon themke from MDEdistricts so theight differentricts. Some rs to purchasapplications

s, and MDE have more dir

dents cited dins with union

s, which wasamong teachrmation

staff through

sured by eithsuch as the Mo motivate thAYP or be

nt responses dents e more of anformation ese turnarouhis barrier spcesses requirmaterials, anmplemented ne principal unfulfilled impeded trict considetrict. Even thportion of th

me that emerE. Specificall

hat districts wnt schools specific areasing and staf, MDE taking away rect control.

ifficulty fully ns representin

cited hers

their

her MME. hese

n

nd poke red nd

and

red hough he

rged ly,

would

as of ffing,

ng

teachers alarge distrschools imtransformleast half Educationaccommotwo separdue to obnot hire thad to haidentifiedlevel restr

Time conmentioneseveral refirst day oit difficulto take plrequired e

and other starict) with thrmplementing

mation schooof the schoon Associationodating to unrate schools mbjections fromthe school imave the schood due to distrrictions on h

nstraints in thed their schooespondents inof school. Act or impossiblace during thextensive tea

aff. Problemsree of these sg the turnarools did, is likeol staff. For en filed so ma

nion demandmentioned thm the Michig

mprovement aol board interrict hurdles, ohow SIG fund

he first year wol was not inndicating theccording to tble to sufficiehe year. Thisacher profess

s due to unioschools havinund model cly due to theexample, oneany lawsuits a

ds and eased uhey could nogan Educatioadministratorvene. In cononly four schds could be s

were cited as nformed of they were notifithe district anently prepare was especial

sional develop

Page 40

ons were citedng adopted thcited issues we fact that thee district admagainst MDEup on some S

ot remove teaon Associatior due to disantrast with thhools mentionspent.

an obstacle heir SIG awaied the day bnd school stae teachers forlly true for cepment such

d in seven sche turnaroun

with the unione turnaround

ministrator claE that the staSIG requiremachers or retaon. One princagreement wihe extent of ined any hurd

by 14 responard until verybefore the schaff interviewer the amountertain aspectas those rely

chools (four ond model. Thns, while onl

d model requaimed that thate eventuallyments. Furthain successfucipal contendith the unionimpediment dles posed by

ndents. Severy late in the shool year beged, late notifit of change tts of the SIGying heavily o

of them in ohat a third of ly about a fiftires replacing

he Michigan y became moher, individuaul staff membded that he cn and eventuaSIG schoolsy federal- or

ral individualsummer, withgan or after tication rendethat was expe

G plans that on technology

ne f the fth of g at

ore als at bers could ally state-

ls h the ered ected

gy.

The trendfirst year.include thdevelopmleadershipusual” at implemenareas wheparticularsecond ye

Developmturnarounand criticrequired bwith the narticulateother indof identifawards reprogress incentive

A related needs. Alcoaching,addition, cogent mpoorly arplan. We skills andsubsequeand stude

Details onboth SIGmonitorinprocedurschools a

ds discussed Many of the

he fulfilling bment and coap roles, and ethese school

nted more fuere the findinr attention toear.

ment and Usnd and turnacal skills in thby SIGs neceneeds of the d) prior to sc

dicators such fication and aelatively late (in developins and remov

issue is the although there, the degree tthe extent to

manner that isticulated comwill pay part

d competencent hiring, evaents.

n SIG MonitG implementang (conductees that schoo

and districts m

in this reporese trends arebasic SIG reqching of modempowering ls in 2010-11

ully than othengs suggestedo these as we

e of Critical around schooheir hiring proessitates thatschool. Whe

creening, seleas staff evalu

articulation m(as late as theg systems foal componen

alignment ofe appears to to which theyo which profs integrally linmpetencies anticularly closees in the secoaluation, ince

toring Procesation and stued by districtols and distrimonitor resu

Nexrt provide MDe evidence ofquirements (ederate to higschool staff.. However, a

ers by the endd less than fucarry out the

Skills and Cools identified,ocesses. Thist educators anen competenecting, or rehuation, profemay be due toe beginning or staff evalua

nts of these s

f professionalbe progress iy are aligned

fessional devenked to the Snd critical ske attention toond year. Weentives, and r

sses. Schoolsdent outcoms and schoolcts use in ord

ults, the data c

Page 41

xt StepDE with a snf substantial e.g., principalgh breadth an. In short, wias might be ed of the firstull implemente more exten

ompetences. , articulated, s is a concernnd leaders pocies and criti

hiring staff, thessional develo the fact thaof the schoolations (more systems do no

l developmenin the deliverwith school

elopment andSIG remains kills or lack ofo schools’ co will also looremoval, and

s and districtsmes. However

s) remain under to more ccollected, an

ps napshot of SIprogress in Sl replacemen

nd frequencyith few excepexpected, sevt year. In thistation of cert

nsive data col

It is still uncand used loc

n because refossess compeical skills are here are impllopment, andat schools recl year). Also, for teachers ot always see

nt and coachry of professs’ specific ned coaching ato be seen. Tf a coherent

ontinued progok closely at td how they al

s seem to ber, the exact p

nclear. We wiclosely examd the extent

IG implemenSIG impleme

nt), providingy, placing teacptions, it wasveral parts ofs section, we tain parts of llection plann

clear the extecally adoptedform at the leetencies that not identifielications for d coaching. Sceived notific while there than principem well form

hing with schsional developeeds remains are provided This could beprofessionalgress on the the extent thlign with sup

e engaged in mprocesses forill follow up

mine how systto which the

ntation durinentation. Theg professionachers in s not “businef the SIG werhighlight sevSIG. We wilned for the

ent to which d competenceevel and inteare well mat

ed (or poorlyprogress on

Some of this cation of SIGappears to b

pals), the mulated.

hools’ specificpment and unclear. In in a coherene a function ol developmendevelopmen

hey are used ipports to teac

monitoring or both types oon the tematically e findings fro

ng the ese al

ess as re veral ll pay

both es ensity tched y

lack G e

c

nt and of nt nt of in chers

of of

om

monitorincoaching,

Variationdistricts sstaff claimfunctionibudgetingfull implebecause dimplemenleadership

Implemenmore comalthough complianimplemensupport, aschool ditwo we wprogress more like

ng are used t, instruction,

n in District Ssupported anmed their disng of SIG scg and curricuementation odistricts haventation. Durip, policies, an

ntation Progmprehensive most turnaro

nce with modntation of indand providinstricts, so mo

will continue that might b

ely to adopt o

to inform ele and other te

Supports Prond facilitated trict had yet

chools. In adula selection. of year one SIe a key role ining year two,nd procedure

gress in Turnain transformound school

del requiremedicators (e.g.ng performanodel type andour documene driven by m

one type of m

ments of plaeacher and st

ovided to SIGthe implemeto modify itsdition, manyAlso, bureau

IG plans in an not only ad we plan to fes that increa

around Schomation school

requirementent), these sch, using critica

nce incentived district mayntation of prmodel compomodel over th

Page 42

an implementtudent suppo

G Schools. Inentation of SIs culture to a

y principals feucratic hurdlea few districtsdministering gfollow-up witase support t

ools. Thus farls compared ts appear to hhools seem tal skills in hirs. Seven of thy be somewhrogress in SIGonents or by he other.

tation (e.g., port strategies)

n the first yeaIG seemed lia degree that elt constrainees at the dists. All of this grants but suth districts toto SIG schoo

r, implementto turnaroun

have been mto have madering and stafhe nine turna

hat confoundG schools any the characte

professional d).

ar, the extentimited. For esignificantly

ed by districttrict level repis of particul

upporting scho examine anols

tation progrend schools. F

met (i.e., schooe less progresffing), the levaround scho

ded. Neverthnd will pay cleristics of sch

development

t to which example, sevey improved thts with regard

portedly hindlar concern hools in theirny changes in

ess appears toFor example, ols are in ss on

vel of district ols were in tw

heless, duringose attentionhools that we

t,

eral he ds to ered

r n

o be

wo g year n to ere

Darling-HlearninDalla

Fixsen, DbetweAdvis

Hurlburt,and SIEducDepa

Scott, C. Wash

U.S. Govway, b

Hammond, Lng in the learnias, TX: Natio

D. L., Naoomeen research sor, 19(1 & 2)

, S., Le FlochIG-eligible and

cation Evaluaartment of Ed

(2011, Februhington, DC:

vernment Accbut reforms affe

L., Wei, R. C.ing profession: A

onal Staff Dev

m, S. F., Blaséand practice, 3-11.

h, K. C., Thed SIG-awardedation and Regducation.

uary). ChanginCenter on E

countability Oected by short ti

Refe., Andree, A.A status reporvelopment C

é, K. A., & We. American Pr

rriault, S. B.,d Schools NCEgional Assista

ng tires en routeEducation Po

Office. (2011ime frames (GA

Page 43

erence, Richardson

rt on teacher devCouncil.

Wallace, F. (20rofessional Soci

& Cole, S. (EE 2011-401ance, Institut

te: Michigan rololicy.

1). School ImpAO Publicati

es n, N., & Orphvelopment in th

007). Implemiety on the Abu

(2011). Baselin19). Washingte of Educati

lls out millions

provement Grantion No. GAO

hanos, S. (20he United Stat

mentation: Thuse of Children

ne Analyses of gton, DC: Nation Sciences

s in School Imp

nts – Early impO-11-741).

009). Professiontes and abroad.

he missing linn (APSAC)

f SIG Applicatational Cente, U.S.

provement Gra

mplementation u

nal .

nk

tions r for

ants.

under

App

Page 44

pendicees

Desscriptioon of SApp

SIG Im

Page 45

endix mpleme

A:  entation Inddicato

rs 

Indic

Recruitinselecting

Professiodevelopm(PD)/trai

Coaching

Performaevaluatio

Decision support dsystems 

Facilitativadminist

Leadersh

System intervent

7 Locally adknowledge plan, and ar

ator 

ng and g staff 

•

•

• • •

onal ment ning 

• •

g • •

ance on 

•

•

•

data •

ve ration  

•

•

hip 

•

•

tions 

•

•

dopted competencies

base, competenre relevant to a

Descript

School/districhiring, retainiqualificationsstudent learnCritical skills/process.7  There is a sysKey grant posPrincipal has School/districAdministratocollective andimprove trainSchool/districSchool/districassess coach School/districtrained, and cSchool/districrelated respoSchool/districevaluation sySchool/districmaking on (a)students and School/districprincipals andDistrict has adwith sufficienSchool/districand key stakestudent learnlearning, schoSchool and diDecision suppensure financteachers, andDistrict has ve

s are required spncies, and gene

all schools. Criti

tion of SIG

ct has revised ping, and removs, criteria, and ning.  locally adopte

tem in place fositions are fillebeen replacedct provides in‐srs use needs ad individual PDning. ct provides on‐ct analyzes datperformance act has a systemcoached; data ct monitors teaonsibilities. ct adopts and istem (transforct has multiple) differentiated(b) SIG progract uses multipld (b) help imprdopted a new nt operational fct leaders creaeholders contrining (i.e., studeool organizatioistrict have an port data systecial, organizatiod school improvetted external 

pecifically for teral abilities releical skills encom

Page 46

Implement

Descr

policies and prving teachers, skills relevant 

d competencie

or financial incd; agreementsd. service trainingssessment and

D needs, (b) exa

‐the‐job coachta on the frequand (b) improvm in place to asare used to infacher, principa

mplements nermation schoole data gatherind instruction tom implementae methods androve their skillsgovernance stflexibility.  te an environmibute to a cument learning is pon and manageactive and engems are used toonal, and humvement modelproviders for s

turnaround schoevant to school mpass locally ad

ation Indica

ription 

rocedures relatprincipals, andto school impr

es are in place 

centives, growts with unions a

g. d pre/post dataamine trainer a

ing. uency, quality, ve coaching. ssess skills on wform staff feedal, and district s

ew rigorous, trls only). g systems to so meet the acaation. d data sourcess to successfullructure for sch

ment of distribmulative, purpoput first, collecement supportgaged SIG teamo work with exan resources als.  schools.  

ools. Critical skirestructuring a

dopted compete

ators

ted to recruitind other staff throvement and 

and used in th

th opportunitieand association

a from trainingand staff perfo

and duration o

which staff wedback. staff implemen

ansparent, and

upport and infademic needs o

s to (a) supportly implement Shools that prov

uted leadershoseful, and posctive responsibts teachers’ effm. xternal systemalign with and 

ills are broader and implementaencies.

ng, interviewinhat focus on that support 

he selection 

es, and removans are in place.

g to (a) identifyormance, and (

of coaching to 

re selected, 

ntation of SIG‐

d equitable sta

form decision of individual 

t teachers and SIG interventiovides principals

ip where all staitive effect on bility for studenforts).  

s (providers) tosupport princi

and refer to thation of the SIG

ng, 

al. . 

y c) 

(a) 

‐

aff 

ons. s 

aff 

nt 

o pals, 

e G

Indic

Stakeholinvolvemand accounta

Family/ communengagem

School environmclimate 

Curriculu

Instructio

Assessme

Alignmenfiscal andhuman resource 

ator 

der ment 

ability 

• •

•

•

ity ment 

•

•

•

ment/ •

um  •

on •

•

ent  

•

•

nt of d 

s 

•

•

•

School/districStakeholders improvementThere is indivschool improvContributionsimprovementSchool/districstudents and School/districsupports.  School/districprovides themTeachers andstrengthen thstudents and School/districaligned to stastudents’ actiSchools and tstudent learnEducators areSchool/districstudent learnAssessments guide instructFiscal and humstudent achieThere is transmonitoring re 

ct involves stakhave a sharedt plan and thosvidual and jointvement plan.s of all key stakt. ct maintains puwith the commct provides soc

ct engages famm with the abil administratorhe learning envteachers and (ct has a cohesiate standards, vive involvementeachers use inning. e committed toct systematicalning and achievare aligned to tional decisionman resource evement.  sparency in resesource use.  

Page 47

Descr

keholders in thd commitment se implementint accountability

keholders are s

urposeful, activmunity in whiccial‐emotional 

milies and commlity to contriburs develop struvironment and(b) create a safve plan for instvertically alignnt in the constntentional proc

o a common villy gathers andvement. state standard

ns and monitorallocation is dr

source allocatio

ription 

he implementato, understandng the plan. y among key st

subject to eval

ve, positive relch it operates tand communit

munity to idenute to the impructures, progra the quality of fe, caring, andtruction and lened, and servesruction and apcesses and pra

ision for the scd uses multiple

ds and curriculr student learnriven by schoo

on, and admin

ation of its impding of, and be

takeholders fo

luation as a pa

lationships witto support studty‐oriented se

ntify priorities arovement procams, and practf the relationsh engaging schoearning that is s as a basis for pplication of knctices to facilit

chool that guide sources of evi

lar content, aning.  ol priorities and

nistrators are a

provement modelief in the 

or executing th

rt of continuou

th families of itdent learning. rvices and 

and concerns, cess.  ices to (a) hips between ool environmeresearch‐baseteachers’ and nowledge. tate high levels

es instruction.idence to mon

nd are used to 

d centered on 

ccountable for

del. 

e 

us 

ts 

and 

nt.  ed,  

s of 

.  itor 

r 

TeelephoApp

one Int

Page 48

endix terview

B: w Prottocolss 

District

School:

Intervie IntroductThanks alike to prme. As you pWestEd, implemeImproveminformatconstrainstudent oThe studSIGs in 20Like I saiddistrict, tmay be implease onAlso, althwant youschool yeDo you h 

YOUR T

First, my during 20

Could yoschool(s)

Distr

:

:

wee:

tion gain for takirovide a little

robably knoand we are ntation of thment Grantsion about thnts they faceoutcomes.  y is taking p010 with fund, we are stuthis includesmplementinnly respond hough WestEu to focus onear.  have any que

ITLE AND R

understandin010-11. Is th

u explain wh)] during 201

rict SIG ASIG Im

ing the timee backgroun

w, I work founder contrhe Americans (SIG) that whe decisions e as they wo

lace at all 28nds from theudying only ts only [nameng transformwith informEd is studyinn how SIG w

estions befor

ROLE 

ng is that youhat correct?

hat your exac10-11?

Adminismplemen

 to speak wid on our wo

r an indepenract with then Recovery awere awardeand strategrk to implem

8 schools wite American Rthe ARRA‐fue of school(smation or turation aboutng all three yas implemen

re we begin?

u were the D

ct duties were

Page 49

trator Inntation i

          Interview Date/Tim

th me this mork, and answ

ndent, not‐foe Michigan Dand Reinvested in 2010. Aies that schoment interve

thin the 18 dRecovery anunded SIGs ts) ]. I understnaround mo [name of scyears of SIG inted in its fir

? 

District SIG A

e with regard

nterviewin Year O              

wer:

me:

morning/aftewer any que

or‐profit resDepartment tment Act (oAnd more spools and distention mode

districts in Md Reinvestmhat were awtand that otodels. Howevchool(s)]. implementarst year – th

Administrato

ds to impleme

w ProtocOne                 

ernoon. Befoestions you m

search organof Educationor ARRA) ‐funpecifically, wtricts undertels intended 

Michigan thament Act (or warded in 20ther schools ver, in our in

ation, for thishat is, during

or in [name o

enting SIG a

col  

 

ore we startmight have f

nization callen to study thnded Schoolwe’re collectitake, and theto improve 

t were awarARRA). 010. So, in yoin your distrnterview tod

s interview Ig the 2010‐1

of district]

at [name of

, I’d for 

ed he l ing e 

rded 

our rict day, 

I just 1 

RECRUIT

Describe identified

How wer

Describe address th

What poltransform

PROFES

Describe related toskills/com

COACHI

Describe SIG strat

PERFOR

How wasevaluation

Describe on model

DECISIO

What dat

Were the

FACILITA

How did principals

How did SIG mod

TING AND 

the staff quad by the distri

re these appli

your systemhe removal o

licies and promation schoo

SIONAL DE

the professioo the implemmpetencies u

NG 

the coachingtegies. (Probe

RMANCE EV

s the performn criteria wit

how the distl fidelity.)

ON SUPPOR

ta did the dist

se data gathe

ATIVE  ADM

the district cs? (Probe for

the district edel? [Probe fo

SELECTING

alifications, cict as critical

ied at the sch

m of financial of teachers an

ocedures did ols? How man

EVELOPME

onal developentation of S

used in hiring

g the district e for alignme

VALUATION

mance of prinh critical skil

trict monitor

RT DATA  SY

trict and prin

ered systemat

MINISTRAT

change its orgr new govern

ensure principor new flexib

G STAFF 

criteria, and sto SIG-relat

hool and dist

incentives annd other staf

the district eny principals

NT (PD)/TR

pment the disSIG strategieg staff.)

provided prient with critic

N 

ncipals and dills/competen

red implemen

YSTEM 

ncipals use to

tically? [If ye

TION  

ganizational nance structu

pals have frebility in staffin

Page 50

kills (includinted school im

rict levels in

nd rewards foff?

establish to rewere replace

RAINING 

strict provides. (Probe for

incipals and cal skills/com

istrict SIG stncies used fo

ntation of SI

o inform deci

s, probe for

structure in 2re.)

eedom and flng, calendars

ng locally admprovement

2010-11?

for staff in 20

eplace princied in 2010-1

ed district star alignment w

teachers to smpetencies u

taff evaluatedor hiring.)

G interventi

isions on SIG

frequency.]

2010-11 to b

lexibility to ims, scheduling

dopted compeefforts.

0101-11? How

ipals in turna1?

aff, principalswith critical

support the imused in hiring

d? (Probe for

on models. (

G implement

better suppor

mplement allg, budgeting.]

etencies)

w did this sy

around and

s, and teache

mplementatig.)

r alignment o

(Probe for fo

tation?

rt schools and

l aspects of th

ystem

ers

ion of

of

ocus

d

he

LEADER

Describe degree to

Did the dactivities

SYSTEM

Describe

CURRIC

What role

How did vertically

ASSESSM

What was

ADDITIO

Please deprevious

What wo

What wo

What add

Any othe

SHIP 

how the disto which, staff

district appoithat support

M INTERVEN

how schools

ULUM  

e did the dist

the district ealigned?

MENT 

s the district’

ONAL QUES

escribe any otquestions.

uld you say w

uld you say w

ditional supp

er comments

trict modifiedf and key stak

nt a SIG teamt implementa

NTIONS 

s worked wit

trict have in i

ensure the cu

’s role in mon

STIONS 

ther support

were the bigg

were the bigg

ort from MD

about SIG im

d its culture/keholders con

m in 2010-11ation of the in

th external pr

identifying cu

urricula used

nitoring stud

you provide

gest successe

gest obstacles

DE would be

mplementati

Page 51

/environmenntributed to

1? If so, descntervention m

roviders to su

urricula used

were researc

dent learning

ed schools du

s during SIG

s to impleme

e most helpfu

on?

nt in 2010-11student learn

cribe the SIGmodels.

upport SIG i

d in SIG scho

ch-based, alig

and achievem

uring 2010-11

G implementa

enting SIG p

ul in addressi

to increase hning.

G team memb

implementat

ools?

gned to state

ment in 2010

1 that was no

ation in 2010

lans in 2010-

ing these obs

how, and the

bership and t

tion.

standards, an

0-11?

ot covered in

0-11?

-11?

stacles?

e

their

nd

n

District

School:

Intervie IntroductThanks alike to prme. As you pWestEd, implemeImproveminformatconstrainstudent oThe studfunds froof these Althoughyou to foyear.  Do you h 

YOUR T

First, my Is that co

RECRUIT

How long2010-11.

SI

:

:

wee:

tion gain for takirovide a little

robably knoand we are ntation of thment Grantsion about thnts they faceoutcomes.  y is taking pom the Amer28 schools. h WestEd is socus on how 

have any que

ITLE AND R

understandinorrect?

TING AND 

g have you b

IG SchooSIG Im

ing the timee backgroun

w, I work founder contrhe Americans (SIGs) that he decisions e as they wo

lace at all 28rican Recove

studying all tSIG was imp

estions befor

ROLE 

ng is that you

SELECTING

been principa

ol Princimplemen

 to speak wid on our wo

r an indepenract with then Recovery awere awardand strategrk to implem

8 schools in ery and Rein

three years plemented i

re we begin?

u were the Sc

G STAFF 

al at this scho

Page 52

pal Interntation i

         Interview Date/Tim

th me this mork, and answ

ndent, not‐foe Michigan Dand Reinvestded in 2010. ies that schoment interve

Michigan thnvestment Ac

of SIG implen its first yea

? 

chool Princip

ool? Describe

rview Prin Year O              

wer:

me:

morning/aftewer any que

or‐profit resDepartment tment Act (oAnd more sools and distention mode

at were awact (or ARRA)

ementation, ar – that is, d

pal at [name

e your role in

rotocol  One                  

ernoon. Befoestions you m

search organof Educationor ARRA) ‐funspecifically, wtricts undertels intended 

arded SIGs in). [name of s

for this inteduring the 2

e of school]

n SIG implem

 

        

ore we startmight have f

nization callen to study thnded Schoolwe’re collecttake, and theto improve 

n 2010 with school] was 

erview I just w2010‐11 scho

during 2010-

mentation in

, I’d for 

ed he l ting e 

one 

want ool 

-11.

Describe identified

How wer

Describe How did

Describe system ad

PROFES

Describe in 2010-1

Describe 2010-11. alignmen

COACHI

Describe skills/com

Describe skills/com

PERFOR

How werevaluation

How did

DECISIO

What datproviding

Were the

the staff quad as critical to

re these appli

the system othis system a

the system oddress the rem

SIONAL DE

the professio11 (Probe for

the professio[Probe for nt with critica

NG 

the coachingmpetencies u

the coachingmpetencies u

RMANCE EV

re teachers ann criteria wit

the school m

ON SUPPOR

ta did you andg differentiate

se data collec

alifications, co SIG-related

ied at your sc

of financial inaddress the r

of financial inmoval of tea

EVELOPME

onal developr alignment w

onal developneeds assessmal skills/comp

g you receiveused in hiring

g your teacheused in hiring

VALUATION

nd other SIGh critical skil

monitor teach

RT DATA  SY

d your teached instructio

cted systema

criteria, and sd school imp

chool in 2010

ncentives andremoval of pr

ncentives andchers?

NT (PD)/TR

pment you rewith critical s

pment your tement, pre/popetencies use

ed as a SIG pg.)

ers received ig.)

N 

G support stalls/competen

her and staff

YSTEM 

ers use to infn?

atically? [If ye

Page 53

kills (includinrovement eff

0-11?

d rewards tharincipals?

d rewards tha

RAINING 

ceived as a pkills/compet

eachers receist data from

ed in hiring s

principal in 2

in 2010-11 (P

ff performanncies used fo

implementat

form decision

es, probe for

ng locally adfforts.

at were availa

at were availa

principal to sutencies used

ived to suppotraining, satitaff.)

010-11. (Pro

Probe for alig

nce evaluatedor hiring.)

tion of SIG r

ns related to

frequency.]

dopted compe

able to you a

able to teach

upport SIG iin hiring staf

ort SIG implisfaction surv

obe for alignm

gnment with

d? (Probe for

responsibiliti

SIG implem

etencies)

as a principal

hers? How did

implementatiff.)

lementation iveys.] (Probe

ment with cri

h critical

r alignment o

ies?

mentation and

?

d this

ion

in e for

itical

of

d in

FACILITA

How did principals

How did teachers?

During 2respect tobudgeting

LEADER

Describe degree to

Did you aactivities

SYSTEM

Describe

ASSESSM

What datof benchm

How did

How did

ADDITIO

Please deprevious

What wer

What wer

What add

Any othe

ATIVE  ADM

the district cs? (Probe for

you change

010-11, desco implementig.]

SHIP 

how you moo which, staff

appoint a SIGthat support

M INTERVEN

how your sc

MENT 

ta did you colmark and int

you ensure a

you ensure a

ONAL QUES

escribe any otquestions.

re the bigges

re the bigges

ditional supp

er comments

MINISTRAT

change its orgr new govern

school organ

ribe any chaning the SIG.

odified the scf and key stak

G team in 20t implementa

NTIONS 

chool worked

llect to moniterim assessm

assessments a

assessments a

STIONS 

ther support

t successes d

t obstacles to

ort from MD

about SIG im

TION  

ganizational nance structu

nizational stru

nges to the fr[Probe for n

chool’s culturkeholders con

010-11? If soation of the in

d with extern

itor student lments.)

are aligned to

are used to g

you provide

during SIG im

o implementi

DE would be

mplementati

Page 54

structure in 2re.)

ucture after y

freedom and new flexibility

re/environmntributed to

, describe thentervention m

nal providers

learning and

o state standa

guide instruct

ed schools du

mplementatio

ing SIG plan

e most helpfu

on?

2010-11 to b

your received

flexibility yoy in staffing,

ment in 2010-student learn

e SIG team mmodel.

to support S

achievement

ards and curr

tional decisio

uring 2010-11

on in 2010-1

ns in 2010-11

ul in addressi

better suppor

d the SIG, to

ou had as a prcalendars, sc

-11 to increasning.

membership

SIG impleme

t in 2010-11?

ricular conte

ons and mon

1 that was no

1?

1?

ing these obs

rt schools and

o better supp

rincipal with cheduling,

se how, and

and their

entation.

? (Probe for u

ent?

nitor student l

ot covered in

stacles?

d

port

the

use

learning?

n the

District

School:

Intervie IntroductThanks alike to prme. As you pWestEd, implemeImproveminformatconstrainstudent oThe studfunds froof these Althoughyou to foyear.  Do you h 

YOUR T

First, my that corre

Could yoschool(s)

SI

:

:

wee:

tion gain for takirovide a little

robably knoand we are ntation of thment Grantsion about thnts they faceoutcomes.  y is taking pom the Amer28 schools. h WestEd is socus on how 

have any que

ITLE AND R

understandinect?

u explain wh)] during 201

G SchooSIG Im

ing the timee backgroun

w, I work founder contrhe Americans (SIGs) that he decisions e as they wo

lace at all 28rican Recove

studying all tSIG was imp

estions befor

ROLE 

ng is that you

hat your exac10-11?

ol Speciamplemen

 to speak wid on our wo

r an indepenract with then Recovery awere awardand strategrk to implem

8 schools in ery and Rein

three years plemented i

re we begin?

u were the SI

ct duties were

Page 55

alist Intentation i

         Interview Date/Tim

th me this mork, and answ

ndent, not‐foe Michigan Dand Reinvestded in 2010. ies that schoment interve

Michigan thnvestment Ac

of SIG implen its first yea

? 

IG Specialist

e with regard

erview Pin Year O              

wer:

me:

morning/aftewer any que

or‐profit resDepartment tment Act (oAnd more sools and distention mode

at were awact (or ARRA)

ementation, ar – that is, d

t at [name o

ds to impleme

rotocol One                  

ernoon. Befoestions you m

search organof Educationor ARRA) ‐funspecifically, wtricts undertels intended 

arded SIGs in). [name of s

for this inteduring the 2

f district] du

enting SIG a

  

        

ore we startmight have f

nization callen to study thnded Schoolwe’re collecttake, and theto improve 

n 2010 with school] was

erview I just w2010‐11 scho

uring 2010-1

at [name of

, I’d for 

ed he l ting e 

one 

want ool 

1. Is

RECRUIT

How longduring 20provided,provide.)

Describe identified

In your oimplemen

Were all k2010-11.

PROFES

Describe implemensurveys.]

Describe needs asscritical sk

Describe

COACHI

Describe alignmen

Describe skills/com

Describe critical sk

DECISIO

What datprovided

TING AND 

g have you b010-11. (Prob, to whom th.

the staff quad as critical to

opinion, are tntation? Plea

key SIG-rela

SIONAL DE

the professiontation in 20[Probe for al

the professiosessment, prekills/compete

any professi

NG 

the coachingt with critica

any coachingmpetencies u

the coachingkills/compete

ON SUPPOR

ta did you useteachers?

SELECTING

been a SIG spbe for previohey provided

alifications, co SIG-related

hese the quaase explain.

ted positions

EVELOPME

onal develop10-11. [Problignment wit

onal develope/post data fencies used in

ional develop

g that the prial skills/comp

g you receiveused in hiring

g you providencies used in

RT DATA  SY

e to inform d

G STAFF 

pecialist at thous experienc

it, and whet

criteria, and sd school imp

alifications, cr

s at the schoo

NT (PD)/TR

pment that thbe for needs ath critical skil

pment you refrom trainingn hiring staff

pment you pr

incipal and tepetencies use

ed in 2010-11g.)

ded teachers an hiring.)

YSTEM 

decisions rela

Page 56

his school? Dce/history wiher they rece

kills (includinrovement eff

riteria, and sk

ol filled? If n

RAINING 

he principal aassessment, plls/competen

ceived to supg, satisfactionf.)

rovided to su

eachers received in hiring.)

1 (Probe for

and principal

ated to SIG i

Describe yourith the schooeived guidanc

ng locally adfforts.

kills necessar

not, describe

and teachers pre/post datancies used in

pport SIG imn surveys.] (P

upport SIG im

ived at this sc

alignment w

ls in 2010-11

implementati

r role in SIG ol, the type ofce on what s

dopted compe

ry for success

progress as o

received to sa from traini

n hiring staff.]

mplementatioProbe for alig

mplementati

chool in 2010

with critical

? (Probe for

ion and the s

implementatf support theupport to

etencies)

sful SIG

of the end of

support SIG ing, satisfacti]

on. [Probe fognment with

ion?

0-11. (Probe

r alignment w

support you

tion ey

f

ion

or

for

with

Are these

FACILITA

How did principals

LEADER

Describe staff and

SYSTEM

Describe

What was

How wer

What role

ASSESSM

Describe

[If applic(Probe fo

ADDITIO

Please dein previou

What wer

What wer

What add

Any othe

e data collect

ATIVE  ADM

the district as and teacher

SHIP 

the leadershkey stakehol

M INTERVEN

how your sc

s your role in

re external pr

e did the dist

MENT 

your role in

able] What dor use of ben

ONAL QUES

escribe any otus questions.

re the bigges

re the bigges

ditional supp

er comments

ed systematic

MINISTRAT

and school chrs? (Probe fo

hip provided lders contribu

NTIONS 

chool worked

n working wi

roviders iden

trict have in w

helping teac

data did you cnchmark and

STIONS 

ther support .

t successes d

t obstacles to

ort from MD

about SIG im

cally? [If yes,

TION  

hange its orgor new govern

by the princiute to studen

d with extern

th external p

ntified and sel

working with

hers monitor

collect to mointerim asses

that you pro

during SIG im

o implementi

DE would be

mplementati

Page 57

, probe for fr

ganizational snance structu

ipal and distrnt learning.

nal providers

providers?

lected?

h external pro

r student lear

onitor studenssments.)

ovided to the

mplementatio

ing SIG plan

e most helpfu

on?

requency.]

structure in 2ure.)

rict in 2010-1

to support S

oviders?

rning and ach

nt learning an

e school in 20

on?

ns?

ul in addressi

2010-11 to be

11 with respe

SIG impleme

hievement in

nd achieveme

010-11 that w

ing these obs

etter support

ect to helping

entation.

n 2010-11?

ent in 2010-1

was not cove

stacles?

t

g

11?

red