Turning C - UCLA School Mental Health Project

The International Journal on School Disaffection © Trentham Books 201122

Turningaround,transforming,andcontinuouslyimprovingschools:Policy proposals are stillbased on a two- ratherthan a three-component blueprint

Howard Adelman and Linda TaylorUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Howard AdelmanDept. of PsychologyUCLA, Box 951563Los Angeles, California, USAEmail: [email protected]: 310/825-1225

Support for this work comes in part from the Office of AdolescentHealth, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (Title V, Social SecurityAct), Health Resources and Services Administration (Project #U45MC 00175) US Department of Health and Human Services.

C learly, low performing, and especially failingschools, are a high priority concern for policymakers. And it is evident that fundamental

systemic changes are necessary. There is, however,inadequate research and no consensus about a policyand practice blueprint and roadmap to guide suchchanges.

Given all the uncertainties associated with turningaround, transforming, and continuously improvingschools, it is essential to keep analyzing deficiencies inproposed blueprints and roadmaps. Such analyses areespecially important with respect to improving lowperforming schools.

We begin our analysis with a discussion of the lensesthrough which systemic problems are viewed by policymakers in the USA and use the school turnaroundmodels the Obama administration has adopted toillustrate the dilemma confronting efforts to enableequity of opportunity. Then, we broaden the analysisto include current priorities for the reauthorization ofthe Elementary and Secondary Education Act asoutlined in the US Department of Education’s ABlueprint for Reform. Our findings highlight theongoing marginalization of practices for directlyaddressing barriers to learning and teaching and re-engaging disconnected students. The findings alsoraise the question of whether this marginalizationcharacterizes reform efforts in other countries.

About Low Performing SchoolsAnalysis of data from 2006B07 on 98,905 schoolsthroughout the USA designated 10,676 schools in needof improvement and 2,302 schools as needingimprovement restructuring (US Department ofEducation, 2008). Currently, the bottom 5 per cent oflow performing schools are viewed as failing schoolsand in need of turnaround strategies (Calkins,Guenther, and Belfiore, 2007).

Measures and criteria used to operationally definelow-performing schools vary. Under the No Child LeftBehind Act these are schools that are classified as inneed of improvement or corrective action or that donot meet the standards established and monitored bythe state board or other authority external to the

school (Herman, Dawson, Dee, Greene, Maynard,Redding, and Darwin, 2008).

While the correlation between neighborhood povertyand low performing schools is widely acknowledged,the specific factors that cause low performance havebeen more a matter of speculation than rigorousresearch. The same is true of the variouscharacteristics attributed to the relatively few settingsdescribed as High Performing, High Poverty schools;and as with low performing schools, the measures andcriteria used to operationally define these settingsvary.

Any school succeeds or fails as a result of thechallenges it faces and its capability for meeting thosechallenges. Some of this capability is contained withinthe school, and some comes from the school districtand community. Most schools serving high povertystudents have not been able to build and muster thelevel of school and community capacity required forsuccess. That is, they have not established ways toensure the population attending the school comeseach day motivationally ready and able to learn whatis on the teaching agenda. Schools that consistentlysucceed are able to effectively weave together schooland community resources and use them in a highlyfunctional manner that matches the motivation andcapabilities of their students. Schools that consistentlyfail often find demands overwhelm their sparseresources, and over time such schools usually becomeincreasingly dysfunctional.

The Blueprint and Roadmap for Turning SchoolsAround in the USAWhile many concerns have been raised about policiesand practices for turning around, transforming, andcontinuously improving schools, those raising suchconcerns do not want to maintain what clearly is anunsatisfactory status quo. And a shared aim of mostcritical analyses is to enhance efforts to ensure equityof opportunity for all students to succeed at everyschool.

The current focus of many critics in the USA is onimproving the federal blueprint and roadmap. Giventhe shortcomings of available research, criticisms anddisagreements are mostly guided by differences inbeliefs and assumptions and are shaped by the lensesthrough which the systemic problems are viewed.

As evidenced by the prevailing discussion inWashington, DC, the lenses through which policymakers view systemic problems are beliefs andassumptions about how best to

� turn around low performing schools

� ensure standards and assessments related toinstruction are globally competitive

� develop and enhance data systems foraccountability, personalizing instruction, andmonitor progress to graduation

� enhance human capital (eg., remove, recruit, anddevelop leaders and teachers).

These clearly are the core topics found in a variety ofschool turnaround documents that are influencingpolicy makers. (See, for example, Aladjem, Birman,Harr-Robins, and Parrish, 2010; Bryk, Sebring,Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton, 2010; Center forComprehensive School Reform and Improvement,2009; Center on Innovation and Improvement, 2007,2010; Herman, Dawson, Dee, Greene, Maynard, andDarwin, 2008; Kowal, Hassel, and Hassel, 2009; MassInsight Education and Research Institute, 2007;Mazzeo and Berman, 2003; Murphy and Meyers, 2007;Redding, 2010; Steiner, 2009; Steiner, Hassel, andHassel, 2008; US Department of Education, 2010a;WestEd, 2010).

School Turnaround Models Illustrate theDilemma Confronting Policy Makers

‘The truth is that we don’t know exactly how to turnaround schools. The truth is also that excuses andinaction don’t help students who are trapped inthese schools. It’s a real dilemma, not a fake one. Butat the department, our feeling is that we have somemodels of success on which to build and we need tostep up to the plate and start working on it.’ JoanneWeiss, US Department of Education

A fundamental problem with the Obamaadministration’s blueprint and roadmap for schoolreform is seen in the policy for turning around lowperforming schools. In the 2010 document A Blueprintfor Reform and the grant application processes forRace to the Top and School Improvement, the USDepartment of Education lays out four models forturning around the lowest performing schools. Thelatest wording (US Department of Education, 2010b)describes the models as follows:

The International Journal on School Disaffection © Trentham Books 2011 23


� TRANSFORMATION MODEL: Replace the principal,strengthen staffing, implement a research-basedinstructional program, provide extended learningtime, and implement new governance and flexibility.

� TURNAROUND MODEL: Replace the principal andrehire no more than 50 percent of the school staff,implement a research-based instructional program,and implement new governance structure.

� RESTART MODEL: Convert or close and re-open theschool under the management of an effectivecharter operator, charter management organization,or education management organization.

� SCHOOL CLOSURE MODEL: Close the school andenroll students who attended it in other higher-performing schools in the district.

Examples of Concerns about the ModelsMany analyses have pointed out that the turnaroundmodels are based on ideas derived primarily from thebusiness sector, especially the literature on TotalQuality Management (TQM) and Business ProcessReengineering (BPR). Unfortunately, available researchsuggests that both these approaches have been largelyineffective in about two-thirds of the cases studied(Hess and Gift, 2009; Staw and Epstein, 2000).

As Loveless (2009) stresses in the Brown Center Reporton how well American students are doing:

People who say we know how to make failing schoolsinto successful ones but merely lack the will to do soare selling snake oil. In fact, successful turnaroundstories are marked by idiosyncratic circumstances.The science of turnarounds is weak and devoid ofpractical, effective strategies for educators toemploy. Examples of large-scale, system-wideturnarounds are nonexistent. A lot of work needs tobe done before the odds of turning around failingschools begin to tip in a favorable direction.

Teachers’ and principals’ unions and guilds across theUSA also are vocal critics. Randi Weingarten, presidentof the American Federation of Teachers, responds thatthe federal turnaround approach places 100 percent ofthe responsibility on teachers and gives them zeropercent of the authority. Dennis Van Roekel, presidentof the National Education Association, emphasizes: Wewere expecting school turn-around efforts to beresearch-based and fully collaborative. Instead, we seetoo much top-down scapegoating of teachers and notenough collaboration. It’s just not a solution to say,

‘Let’s get rid of half the staff.’ If there’s a high-crimeneighborhood, you don’t fire the police officers(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010).

And, in an open letter to the Office of Elementary andSecondary Education, Gail Connelly, ExecutiveDirector of the National Association of ElementarySchool Principals (NAESP) stresses: ANAESP supportsthe Secretary’s initiative to identify the lowestperforming schools, establish rigorous interventions,provide them sufficient resources over multiple yearsto implement those interventions, and hold themaccountable for improving student performance.However, we fundamentally disagree with theapproach to enact this wide-ranging andtransformational reform initiative with the simplisticand reactionary step of replacing principals as the firststep in turning around low-performing schools.NAESP strongly supports reform models that providethe essential resources existing principals of low-performing schools must have to succeed. Theseresources include the necessary time, talent and tools(Letter dated September 25, 2009 cited in Wikipedia).

Moving to mobilize critical reaction, the NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals hasencouraged its members to write to Congress. Themessage is: Research on turnaround schools andsustained middle level and high school reform doesnot support the models put forth by ED. Low-performing schools can improve with a sustainedeffort to build the capacity of school leaders and theirteams. ... The Breaking Ranks framework [promoted byNASSP] has been repeatedly validated by ... a set ofdiverse, high-poverty schools that ... have seen growthover time in ... graduation rates, state assessmentscores, and literacy and numeracy achievement. Andeach school that implements the Breaking Ranksframework reminds us all that turning around a schoolis three-to-five years of time-consuming, resource-intensive, hard work (http://www.principals.org/plac).

On a pragmatic level, the concern is that manycommunities simply don’t have the pool of talent torecruit new and better principals and teachers. Asnoted by Dennis Van Roekel: One thing is certain:Firing the entire faculty of a school that is on the pathto improvement is no recipe for turning around astruggling high school. And relying on a magical poolof excellent teachers’ to spring forth and replace themis naive at best and desperately misguided (NEA,2010).

Concerns aside, states are moving forward withimplementing the four turnaround models. At thesame time, it is obvious that adopting one of these isno more than an awkward beginning in enablingequity of opportunity.

School Turnaround Policy and Enabling Equity ofOpportunity:Tinkering Toward a Three-Component Approach

It is not enough to say that all children can learn orthat no child will be left behind; the work involvesachieving the vision of an American educationsystem that enables all children to succeed inschool, work, and life. (From the 2002 missionstatement of CCSSO B the Council for Chief StateSchool Officers B italics added)

In A Blueprint for Reform, the US Department ofEducation (2010b) indicates that enabling equity ofopportunity requires moving toward comparability inresources between high- and low-poverty schools,rigorous and fair accountability for all levels, andmeeting the needs of diverse learners ... by providingappropriate instruction and access to a challengingcurriculum along with additional supports andattention where needed.

The sparse attention to additional supports andattention where needed reflects another fundamentalproblem with the current blueprint and roadmap forturning around, transforming, and continuouslyimproving schools. It is a long-standing policy trend toview student and learning supports in terms ofauxiliary services and usually as an afterthought. Forour policy analysis of the problem with this trend, seeSchool Improvement Planning: What’s Missing? (Centerfor Mental Health in Schools, 2005). And in reviewingthe first analyses of the Race to the Top applications,we find that this continues to be a fundamentalsystemic deficit in school improvement policy andpractice (CCSSO and Learning Point Associates, 2010).

Because student and learning supports are given shortshrift in federal, state, and local policy, efforts aremarginalized when it comes to identifying andcorrecting fundamental systemic deficits in howschools address barriers to learning and teaching andintervene to re-engage disconnected students. Themarginalization results in the ongoing relative neglectof this essential facet of any blueprint for enabling allstudents to have an equal opportunity to succeed atschool.

Current Policy:Tinkering Rather thanTransformingIn the Obama administration’s blueprint for reform,the commitment to equity and opportunity for allstudents is stated as the third of five priorities. Theclosest the document come to delineating supports tomeet this priority are the sections on

1 Meeting the Needs of English Language Learnersand Other Diverse Learners (i.e., students eligible forcompensatory and special education)

2 Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students.

In the former, the stated intent is to strengthen thecommitment to all students and improve eachprogram to ensure that funds are used moreeffectively. The problem here is the continuingemphasis on categorical problems and fundingformulas and too little emphasis on the overlappingnature of the many factors that interfere with learningand teaching.

With respect to the focus on Successful, Safe, andHealthy Students, the blueprint indicates a newapproach focused on

– Providing a cradle through college and careercontinuum in high-poverty communities thatprovides effective schools, comprehensive services,and family supports.

– Supporting programs that redesign and expand theschool schedule, provide high-quality after schoolprograms, and provide comprehensive supports tostudents.

– Using data to improve students’ safety, health, andwell-being, and increasing the capacity of states,districts, and schools to create safe, healthy, anddrug-free environments.

The road to all this is described as providing

competitive grants to support states, school districts,and their partners in providing learningenvironments that ensure that students aresuccessful, safe, and healthy. To better measureschool climate and identify local needs, grantees willbe required to develop and implement a state- ordistrict-wide school climate needs assessment toevaluate school engagement, school safety(addressing drug, alcohol, and violence issues), andschool environment, and publicly report this


information. This assessment must include surveysof student, school staff, and family experiences withrespect to individual schools, and additional datasuch as suspensions and disciplinary actions. Stateswill use this data to identify local needs and providecompetitive subgrants to school districts and theirpartners to address the needs of students, schools,and communities.

Grantees will use funds under the Successful, Safe,and Healthy Students program to carry out strategiesdesigned to improve school safety and to promotestudents’ physical and mental health and well-being,nutrition education, healthy eating, and physicalfitness. Grantees may support activities to preventand reduce substance use, school violence(including teen dating violence), harassment, andbullying, as well as to strengthen family andcommunity engagement in order to ensure a healthyand supportive school environment.

The limitations of this new approach and thecontinuing neglect of extensive systemic deficitsrelated to interventions targeting student diversity,disability, and differences are seen readily whenviewed through two lenses: (1) how schools try todirectly address barriers to learning and teaching and(2) how they try to re-engage students who havebecome disconnected from classroom instruction.These two lenses bring into focus the considerableresources currently expended on student and learningsupports (e.g., underwritten by general funds,compensatory and special education, special intra andextramural projects, community contributions).Together, these lenses allow for the type of analysesthat illuminates fundamental flaws in how theseresources are used. And, they help expandunderstanding of the full range of systemic changesneeded to prevent and reduce the problems cited in ABlueprint for Reform, reduce student (and teacher)


dropout rates, narrow the achievement gap, counterthe plateau effect related to student populationachievement scores, and in general, alleviateinequities.

Prevailing Policy is Shaped by a Two-ComponentFramework for School ImprovementBecause the two lenses noted above are notprominently used, policy and plans for turningaround, transforming, and continuously improvingschools are primarily shaped by a two componentframework which marginalizes efforts related toproviding additional supports and attention whereneeded. This is graphically illustrated in Exhibit 1.

Obviously, the problem is not with the twocomponents, per se. Effective instruction is, of course,fundamental to a school’s mission; no one wants tosend children to a school where teachers lack highstandards, expectations, and competence; and soundgovernance and management of resources areessential. As Exhibit 1 highlights, the problem is thatthe many interventions designed to address barriers tolearning and teaching and re-engage disconnectedstudents are introduced through ad hoc and piecemealpolicy and operate in a fragmented manner. Theprocess amounts to tinkering with little focus onsystemic transformation.

The reality is that many overlapping factors caninterfere with learning and teaching. Teachers in lowperforming schools point to how few students appearmotivationally ready and able to learn what the dailylesson plan prescribes. Teachers in the upper gradesreport that a significant percentage of their studentshave become actively disengaged and alienated fromclassroom learning. And, acting out behavior,especially bullying and disrespect for others, isrampant. (So is passivity, but this attracts lessattention.) One result of all this is seen in theincreasing number of students misdiagnosed as havinglearning disabilities (LD) and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorders (ADHD). Another result is toomany dropouts and pushouts.

Teachers need and want considerable help inaddressing barriers to student and school success.Unfortunately, the help they currently receive is poorlyconceived and designed in ways that meet the needsof relatively few students. This inadequate response totheir needs is the product of two-component thinking.Such a framework ignores ways to transform student

and learning supports by moving toward acomprehensive system that enables all students to learnand all teachers to teach effectively. While the lowestperforming schools probably are most in need ofdeveloping such a system, it is evident that all highpoverty, low performing schools and most otherschools are expending significant resources onaddressing barriers to learning and teaching and re-engaging disconnected students with too little payoffand accountability.

Ensuring Equity of Opportunity: What’s stillMissing in Policy and Practice?As Judy Jeffrey, then chief state school officer for Iowa,stresses in introducing Iowa’s design for acomprehensive system of supports for developmentand learning (Iowa Department of Education, 2004).

Through our collective efforts, we must meet thelearning needs of all students. Not every studentcomes to school motivationally ready and able tolearn. Some experience barriers that interfere withtheir ability to profit from classroom instruction.Supports are needed to remove, or at least toalleviate, the effects of these barriers. Each studentis entitled to receive the supports needed to ensurethat he or she has an equal opportunity to learn andto succeed in school. This [design] providesguidance for a new direction for student supportthat brings together the efforts of schools, families,and communities.

If every student in every school and community inIowa is to achieve at high levels, we must rethinkhow student supports are organized and delivered toaddress barriers to learning. This will require thatschools and school districts, in collaboration withtheir community partners, develop acomprehensive, cohesive approach to delivery oflearning supports that is an integral part of theirschool improvement efforts.

Our previous analyses of school improvement policies,planning, and practices have documented thesystemic deficits in dealing with factors leading to andmaintaining students’ problems, especially in schoolswhere large proportions of students are not doing well(Center for Mental Health in Schools, 2005). Thepicture that emerges is one of ad hoc and fragmentedpolicies and practices. The tangential solution seen infederal policy (eg., the Race to the Top and SchoolImprovement grant applications) continues to be to


call for improving coordination and coherence andflexibility in use of resources. This amounts totinkering with systemic deficiencies rather thanrecognizing the need to develop a comprehensivesystem to address barriers to learning and teachingand re-engage disconnected students.

Comprehensiveness ‘ More than CoordinationBecause the Obama administration’s blueprint forreform’s new approach to successful, safe, and healthystudents does propose providing comprehensivesupports to students, it is relevant here to brieflydiscuss the notion of a comprehensive system. Asnoted, the widely recognized fragmentation ofinterventions designed to support students often leadsto efforts to enhance coordination. Improvingcommunication, coordination, cohesion, andflexibility in use of resources are important attributesof a comprehensive system. However, these stop shortof establishing the type of expanded policy andpractice that is needed as a basis for integrating andfully developing student and learning supports.

Too often, what is being identified as comprehensive isnot comprehensive enough, and generally theapproach described is not about developing a systemof supports but a proposal to enhance coordination offragmented efforts. Many times the emphasis mainly ison health and social services, usually with the notionof connecting more community services to schools. Insome instances, the focus expands to include a varietyof piecemeal programs for safe and drug free schools,family assistance, after-school and summer programs,and so forth. All these programs and services arerelevant. But, most proposals to improve supports stillfail to escape old ways of thinking about what schoolsneed both in terms of content and process foraddressing barriers to learning and teaching.

Comprehensive means more than coordination. Theneed is for system building within and across acontinuum of intervention. This encompassesintegrated systems for

a promoting healthy development and preventingproblems,

b responding as early after problem onset as isfeasible, and

c providing for those whose serious, pervasive, andchronic problems require more intensive assistanceand accommodation.

Comprehensive approaches to student and learningsupports involve much more than enhancingavailability and access to health and social services orlimiting the focus to any other piecemeal and ad hocinitiatives for addressing barriers to learning,development, and teaching. Just as efforts to enhanceinstruction emphasize well delineated and integratedcurriculum content, so must efforts to addressexternal and internal factors that interfere withstudents engaging effectively with that curriculum. Atschools, the content (or curriculum) for addressing afull range of interfering factors can be coalesced intosix classroom and school-wide arenas. These focus on:

1 enhancing regular classroom strategies to enablelearning (e.g, improving instruction for studentswho have become disengaged from learning atschool and for those with mild-moderate learningand behavior problems)

2 supporting transitions (i.e, assisting students andfamilies as they negotiate school and grade changesand many other transitions)

3 increasing home and school connections

4 responding to, and where feasible, preventing crises

5 increasing community involvement and support(outreaching to develop greater communityinvolvement and support, including enhanced use ofvolunteers)

6 facilitating student and family access to effectiveservices and special assistance as needed.

Moving to a Three Component Framework forSchool ImprovementAs illustrated in Exhibit 1 and in the relateddiscussion, analyses of current policy indicate schoolimprovement initiatives are dominated by a two-component framework. The main thrust is onimproving instruction and how schools manageresources. While there are a variety of student supportprograms and services, they are marginalized in policyand practice, and they are pursued in piecemeal andfragmented ways. Throughout many years of schoolreform, little or no attention has been paid torethinking these learning supports. As we stressedabove, this state of affairs works against ensuring allstudents have an equal opportunity to succeed atschool.


Exhibit 2 illustrates the notion that policy forimproving schools needs to shift from a two- to athree-component framework. The third componentbecomes the unifying concept and umbrella underwhich all resources currently expended for studentand learning supports are woven together. As with theother two components, such an enabling or learningsupports component must be treated in policy andpractice as primary and essential in order to combatthe marginalization and fragmentation of the work.Furthermore, to be effective it must be fully integratedwith the other two components. Properly conceived,the component provides a blueprint and roadmap fortransforming the many pieces into a comprehensiveand cohesive system at all levels.

An Enabling Component: A TransformationalConceptThe move to a three-component framework is meantto be a paradigm shift. As indicated, the shift is from amarginalized and fragmented set of student support

services to development of a comprehensive,multifaceted, and cohesive system. The intent of thesystem is to ensure that schools are well-positioned toenable students to get around barriers to learning andre-engage them in classroom instruction (see Exhibit3). The emphasis on re-engagement recognizes thatefforts to address interfering factors, provide positivebehavior support, and prevent disengagement anddropouts are unlikely to be effective over time if theyare not designed in ways that ensure students re-engage in classroom instruction (Adelman and Taylor,2006a, 2006b, 2008a).

In operationalizing an enabling or learning supportscomponent, the emphasis is on

a continuum of interconnected systems ofinterventions (see Exhibit 4) and

a multifaceted set of content arenas that arecohesively integrated into classrooms and school-wide interventions (see six arenas listed above andin Exhibit 5).



Developing the component involves weaving togetherwhat schools already are doing and enhancing theeffort by inviting in home and community resources tohelp fill high priority systemic gaps. The matrixillustrated in Exhibit 5 coalesces the continuum withthe content to provide a planning tool that can guideschool improvement by indicating where current and

proposed activity fits and what’s missing (Adelmanand Taylor, 2006a, 2006b, 2008b; Center for MentalHealth in Schools, 2008).

Various states and localities in the USA are moving inthe direction of a three component approach forschool improvement. In doing so, they are adopting




different labels for their enabling component. Forexample, Iowa refers to theirs as a System of Supportsfor Learning and Development. On the next page seean excerpt from Louisiana’s state initiative for aComprehensive Learning Supports System. For adiscussion of other pioneering initiatives and lessonslearned to date, see Where’s it Happening? http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/summit2002/wheresithappening.htm).

In general, we find that many are referring to theirthird component as learning supports. Andincreasingly, learning supports are being defined asthe resources, strategies, and practices that providephysical, social, emotional, and intellectual supportsintended to enable all pupils to have an equalopportunity for success at school.

At this point, it is relevant to stress that the threecomponent framework does nothing to detract fromthe fact that a strong academic program is thefoundation from which all other school-basedinterventions must flow. Rather, an enabling orlearning supports component provides an essentialsystemic way to address factors that interfere withstudents benefiting from improvements in academicinstruction.

Concluding Comments As the Carnegie Task Force on Education has stressed:

School systems are not responsible for meeting everyneed of their students.

But when the need directly affects learning, the schoolmust meet the challenge.

In this time of need and change, it is essential thatpolicy makers move to a three-component frameworkfor turning around, transforming, and continuouslyimproving schools. The third component will provide aunifying concept and an umbrella under whichdistricts and schools can weave together allinterventions specifically intended to address barriersto learning and teaching and re-engage disconnectedstudents.

Only by unifying student and learning supports will itbe feasible to develop a comprehensive system todirectly address many of the complex factorsinterfering with schools accomplishing their mission.And only by developing such a system will it befeasible to facilitate the emergence of a school

environment that fosters successful, safe, and healthystudents and staff. (It is important to remember thatschool climate is an emergent quality that stems fromhow schools provide and coalesce on a daily basis thecomponents dedicated to instruction, learningsupports, and management/governance.)

Pioneering work to enhance student and learningsupports heralds movement toward a comprehensivesystem for addressing factors interfering with learningand teaching. Thus, whether or not the impendingreauthorization of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act in the USA incorporates a three-component blueprint, we anticipate more and moremovement in this direction at state, regional, district,and school levels. The call for ensuring equity andopportunity for all students demands no less.

ReferencesAdelman, H.S., and Taylor, L. (2006a). The school leader’s guide to

student learning supports: New directions for addressingbarriers to learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Adelman, H.S., and Taylor, L. (2006b). The implementation guide tostudent learning supports in the classroom and schoolwide:New directions for addressing barriers to learning. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Adelman, H.S. and Taylor, L. (2008a). Rebuilding for learning:Addressing barriers to learning and teaching and re-engagingstudents. New York: Scholastic, Inc. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/rebuild/RebuidlingV11RD28.pdf

Adelman, H.S., and Taylor, L. (2008b). School improvement: Asystemic view of what’s missing and what to do about it. In B.Despres (Ed.), Systems thinkers in action: A field guide foreffective change leadership in education. Rowman andLittlefield Education.

Aladjem, D.K., Birman, B.F., Harr-Robins, J., and Parrish, T.B.(2010). Achieving dramatic school improvement: An exploratorystudy. Prepared for the US Department of Education.Washington, DC: American Institutes of Research.http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/dramatic-school-improvement/exploratory-study.pdf

Alliance for Excellent Education (2010). Obama administrationreleases ESEA blueprint: Proposal to overhaul NCLB centers onraising standards, focusing attention on the lowest-performingschools. Straight A’s: Public Education Policy and Progress: 10,#6.

Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., and Easton,J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons fromChicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Calkins, A., Guenther, W., and Belfiore, G. (2007). The turnaroundchallenge. Boston: Mass Insight Education and ResearchInstitute. http://www.massinsight.org/turnaround/challenge.aspx

Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.(2009). School restructuring, what works when? A guide foreducation leaders. Washington, DC: Learning Points Associates.Retrieved from http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/School_Restructuring_Guide.pdf

Center for Mental Health in Schools (2005). School improvementplanning: What’s missing? Los Angeles: Author. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/whatsmissing.htm

Center for Mental Health in Schools (2008). Frameworks forsystemic transformation of student and learning supports. LosAngeles: Author.http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/systemic/frameworksforsystemictransformation.pdf

Center on Innovation and Improvement (2007). Schoolturnarounds: A Review of the cross-sector evidence on dramaticorganizational improvement. Prepared by Public Impact for theCenter on Innovation and Improvement, a national centersupported by the US Department of Education.http://www.centerii.org/survey/downloads/Turnarounds-Color.pdf

Center on Innovation and Improvement (2010). Handbook oneffective implementation of school improvement grants.Lincoln, IL: Author. http://www.centerii.org/handbook/

CCSSO and Learning Point Associates (2010). Preliminary review:CCSSO strategic initiatives identified in state phase 1 Race tothe Top applications. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID’382

Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Green, J., Maynard, R., Redding,S., and Darwin, M. (2008). Turning around chronically lowperforming schools: A practice guide. Washington, DC: TheCenter for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/Turnaround_pg_04181.pdf

Hess, F. and Gift, T. (2009). School turnarounds: Resisting the hype,giving them hope. Washington, DC: AEI Outlook Series.http://www.aei.org/outlook/100011

Iowa Department of Education with the Iowa Collaboration forYouth Development (2004). Enhancing Iowa’s systems ofsupports for development and learning. Des Moines, IA: Author.http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/iowasystemofsupport.pdf

Kowal, J., Hassel, E. A., and Hassel, B. C. (2009). Successful schoolturnarounds: Seven steps for district leaders. Washington, DC:The Center for Comprehensive School Reform andImprovement. http://centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefSept09.pdf

Loveless, T. (2010). The 2009 Brown Center Report on AmericanEducation: How well are American students learning?Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Mass Insight Education and Research Institute (2007). The turnaround challenge: Why america’s best opportunity todramatically improve student achievement lies in our worstperforming schools. Boston: Author. http://www.massinsight.org/turnaround/challenge.aspx

Mazzeo, C. and Berman, I.. (2003). Reaching new heights: Turningaround low performing schools. Washington,DC: NationalGovernors Association, Center for Best Practices.http://www.nga.org/cda/files/0803REACHING.PDF

Murphy, J. and Meyers, C. (2007) Turning around failing schools:Lessons from the organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.

NEA (2010). Collaboration is key to improving schools anddecreasing dropout rates. News Release from the NationalEducation Association. Washington, DC: Author.http://www.nea.org/home/38276.htm

Redding, S. (2010). Selecting the intervention model and partners.Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement.www.centerii.org

Staw, B.M. and Epstein, L.D. (2000). What bandwagons bring:Effects of popular management techniques on corporateperformance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 45, 523-556.

Steiner, L. (2009). Tough decisions: Closing persistently low-performing schools. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation andImprovement. http://www.centerii.org/survey/

Steiner, L. Hassel, E. and Hassel, B. (2008). School turnaroundleaders: Competencies for success. Chapel Hill, NC: PublicImpact. http://www.publicimpact.com/publications/Turnaround_Leader_Competencies.pdf

US Department of Education (2008). Mapping America’seducational progress. Washington, DC: Author.http://ed.gov/nclb/accountability/results/progress/nation.html

US Department of Education (2010a). Achieving dramatic schoolimprovement: An exploratory study. Washington, DC: Office ofPlanning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy andProgram Studies Service. www.wested.org/cs/schturn/print/docs/schturn/research.htm

US Department of Education(2010b). A blueprint for reform: Thereauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.Washington, DC: Author.

WestEd (2010). School transformation and turnaround: The WestEdapproach. San Francisco: Author. http://www.wested.org/schoolturnaroundcenter/docs/school-turnaround-center.pdf


Documents

Turning C - UCLA School Mental Health Project