Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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