School and district turnaround through Michigan’s Partnership Model

By Nathan Storey, Johns Hopkins University

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) grants  states significant autonomy in choosing  methods  to identify and improve the lowest performing schools. In 2017, Michigan initiated the Partnership Model of School and District Turnaround, providing support and accountability for 119 schools from 36 districts that had previously ranked in the bottom 5% statewide between 2017 and 2020. Schools and districts were identified for the Partnership program in three waves and received enhanced support and resources from Michigan Department of Education. This included Partnership Agreement liaisons for  individualized support, greater regional support from intermediate school districts, access to exclusive grants, special education services, professional development, data services, and additional funding.

In a recent study, Burns and colleagues conducted a mixed-methods analysis of the impact of the Partnership Model on student and school outcomes. They explored differences in impact for various student groups and how varying  implementations may have influenced outcomes across schools and districts. Drawing from administrative data representing over 2 million students, as well as teacher surveys, the researchers developed two matched cohorts to examine the Partnership Model’s impact compared  to low-performing schools that were never designated as Partnership schools.

The researchers looked at the impact of the Partnership Model for students in Grades 4 and 8 after one year (Cohort 2) and two years (Cohort 1). Overall, they detected a positive effect on student outcomes for those in Partnership schools, as well as for other low-performing schools within the Partnership districts that were not specifically involved. In particular, students in Grades 4 and 8 from both cohorts demonstrated gains in math, and those from Cohort 1 demonstrated gains in reading. However, improved outcomes were not found for Partnership school students in terms of SAT achievement, graduation rate, or dropout rate. This is consistent with studies that note larger gains for younger students than for older ones.

The findings point to two key takeaways: First, that the effect appears to be more consistent for students in Cohort 1, who  received Partnership services and supports over two years. While large scale reform takes time,  it is noteworthy that statistically significant changes were observable after just two years. Second, the observed impact on schools in the same districts as those included in the Partnership program underscores  the broader reach of systematic reform efforts like  the Partnership Model.

School turnaround: Potentially positive, but it depends

By Ashley Grant, Johns Hopkins University

Is school turn-around the answer for schools mired in low achievement and low morale? A recent meta-analysis of 35 studies by Redding and Nguyen seeks to add evidence to this policy-important question. Specifically, they examined studies looking at school transformation, school turnover, school restart, and accountability-driven closures, excluding comprehensive school reform or financial or charter closures.

Overall, the authors found positive effects of turnaround on attendance (ES =+0 .41), graduation (ES =+0.10), and math and ELA achievement (ES = +0.08, +0.04). The authors also found that these effects varied  by turnaround model (e.g., transformation vs. restart), length of time since turnaround, governance changes, and chosen research design. Important to note when considering these findings, the authors acknowledge the mixed quality of the included studies and variability among the turnaround models assessed in the studies (being more descriptive rather than evaluating particular policy initiatives).

Are low-performing schools curable?

By Qiyang Zhang, Johns Hopkins University

As a result of federal educational policy, four common responses to address low-performing schools have included turnaround (drastically improving the schools), labeling (motivating schools through public performance-related labels), closure (shutting down the schools), and charter conversion (changing the school to a charter school). However, opponents of these school improvement efforts often argue that they are not very effective. A recent paper adopted meta-analysis to investigate the effects of these school improvement approaches in K-12 U.S. schools.

Researchers from University of Virginia, Harvard University, and Education Trust conducted a thorough literature search, which returned 67 eligible studies of a variety of school improvement policy efforts. Their results suggested that, on average, investing in improving low-performing schools has a significant moderate effect on standardized measures of math (ES=+0.06, p < .05) and a small, non-significant effect on standardized measures of English Language Arts (ES=+0.02, n.s.).  On low-stakes tests, moderate impacts were identified on STEM (ES=+0.07, p < .05), and humanities (ES=+0.08, p < .05). Apart from those academic outcomes, researchers also looked at three non-examination outcomes, and found that turnaround policies had no significant impacts on attendance (ES=+0.11), disciplinary infractions (ES=-0.01), and graduation (ES=+0.04).

Researchers also found that, across different disciplines, turnaround policies have the greatest benefits for schools serving majority-Latinx student populations. Another intuitive conclusion is that longer interventions and more intervention types tend to produce larger effects. In particular, extended learning time and teacher replacement are the two most recommended intervention features.

NASBE’s State Education Standard Explores School Turnaround Strategies

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) offers state policymakers an opportunity to reset how they address low-performing schools. States can capitalize on the added flexibility under ESSA and approaches already adopted in many states and districts to help struggling schools. The new issue of the National Association of State Boards of Education’s award-winning journal, The State Education Standard, showcases a variety of these approaches for state boards of education and state education agencies to consider.

Robert E. Slavin of the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University discusses ESSA’s evidence standards and offers guidance to state boards looking for assurance that their states’ school turnaround approaches might really work.

Read the full May 2018 issue of The State Education Standard. Individual articles can be downloaded here.