Transforming Historically Low-Performing Schools: Successful Turnaround Strategies for New York City Middle Grade Schools

• In Event: Improving Outcomes and Engagement for Middle Grade Students: Evidence From Schools and Classrooms

Abstract

The objective of this study was to learn more about the factors that are most responsible for the success of the middle grade schools that were initially performing but managed to greatly improve their outcomes in the last three years. By comparing two subsets of initially low-performing middle grade schools – those that have shown significant growth and those that have shown little or no growth in student achievement – this research will provide a richer understanding of the organizational differences between “turnaround” schools and those that are persistently low performing.

Our inquiry was guided by extant literature on school turnaround and key research on improving middle grade schools. Empirical research on schools that have turned around or significantly improved student achievement focus largely on two levers: school leadership and professional capacity (Center on Innovation and Improvement, 2007; Leithwood & Strauss, 2010; Picucci, Brownson, Kahlert, & Sobel, 2002; Public Impact, 2008). In addition, current literature on middle grade schools highlights that two major shifts occur during this period: a marked decrease in student engagement and parent involvement (Balfanz, Herzog, & Iver 2010; Lee, Smith, Perry, and Smylie, 1999; Roney, Coleman, & Schlichting, 2007; Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Thus, these four areas - School Leadership, Professional Capacity, Student Engagement and Support, and Parent and Community Engagement – became our guiding frames for investigating improvement efforts in these schools. This research aimed to explore which of these indicators (and in which forms) was more directly associated with school turnaround.

Data collection took place in two rounds across six initially low performing middle grade schools – four that showed significant growth since 2006 and two that showed little or no growth. Data collection activities included 1) school leader interviews, 2) teacher focus groups, 3) observations of teacher meetings, and 4) ongoing document analysis of publicly available data on student outcomes and school characteristics.

Three major components of middle school improvement emerged as factors that distinguished the turnaround schools from the non-turnaround schools. 1) The leaders of the turnaround schools set measurable goals, effectively communicated those goals to teachers, and aligned those goals with schoolwide strategies for improving student achievement. 2) Improving teacher capacity in the turnaround schools involved teacher leaders and was closely connected to both teachers’ daily work and student data. 3) Positive relationships between administration and staff and between staff and students were critical to the success of the turnaround schools. Other preliminary findings suggest that all schools needed more support in academically engaging students and increasing parent involvement.

Current research on the middle grades documents a large body of strategies for promoting school and student success. But fewer studies systemically explore how these strategies function at the school level and their relative importance in predicting or improving school performance. This study addresses this gap in the research. In addition, by focusing on initially low performing schools that have turned around, this investigation holds promise for the most struggling schools serving the highest-need students.

Authors

• Adriana Villavicencio, New York University

• Justina Grayman, New York University