Đánh giá dịch vụ của Lead Turnaround Partners tại Virginia - Tamara A. Sterling

University of New England DUNE: DigitalUNE All Theses And Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 7-2019 An Evaluation Of Lead Turnaround Partners’ Services In Virginia Tamara A. Sterling University of New England Follow this and additional works at: https://dune.edu/theses Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Educational Leadership Commons © 2019 Tamara A. Sterling Preferred Citation Sterling, Tamara A., "An Evaluation Of Lead Turnaround Partners’ Services In Virginia" (2019). All Theses And Dissertations.edu/theses/252 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at DUNE: DigitalUNE.

It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses And Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DUNE: DigitalUNE. For more information, please contact bkenyon@une. An Evaluation of Lead Turnaround Partners’ Services in Virginia By Tamara A. Texas Southern University, 1996 M.

Prairie View A&M University, 2002 A DISSERTATION Presented to the Affiliated Faculty of The College of Graduate and Professional Studies at the University of New England In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Education Portland & Biddeford, Maine August, 2019 Copyright by Tamara A. Sterling 2019 ii Tamara A. Sterling July 11, 2019 Educational Leadership An Evaluation of Lead Turnaround Partners’ Services in Virginia ABSTRACT School reform in K–12 education has experienced a cycle of changes that requires the implementation of stringent mandates for increased student achievement and sanctions for school divisions not meeting the required benchmarks. The purpose of this study is to identify school- based services that Lead Turnaround Partners (LTPs) provided to priority elementary schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia relative to the improvement, if any, of third through fifth grade students’ Standard of Learning (SOL) reading assessment scores.

The study utilized a systematic review approach to data collection that will analyze Lead Turnaround Partners’ Scope of Work, Quarterly Reports, and Standards of Learning Achievement archival data. A program evaluation was used to document services provided by the LTP that improved, stagnated, or resulted in the decline of student achievement on the state reading assessment. The overarching research question that shaped the study is: What services did LTPs provide priority elementary schools selected for this study relative to the improvement, if any, of third through fifth grade students’ SOL reading assessment scores? The contextual influences of the study are priority schools identified by the Virginia Department of Education during the 2013–2014 school year and ending during the 2016–2017 school year. The four priority elementary schools in the study that collaboratively worked with Lead Turnaround Partners for a period of two years had an increase in student achievement on the SOL reading assessment for students in third through fifth grade.

There were common school- iii based services that emerged across all four schools that can be attributed to laying the foundation for the increase in SOL reading academic achievement scores. The evaluation process revealed that improving student achievement would require targeted content coaching and professional development. The data showed that out of the nine themes, seven focused on providing teachers with targeted instructional support. Recommendations from the study suggest: A plan should be collaboratively developed between the school leadership and LTP for the first year the LTP transitions out.

The needs assessment, scope of work, and plan delivery should be built into the turnaround process; the VDOE and district leadership should develop a three-year sustainable improvement plan that is continuously monitored by state provided Lead Partners, Division Superintendents, and School Administrators; the monitoring process should be extended for an additional two to three years after the services of the LTPs have been concluded. iv University of New England Doctor of Education Educational Leadership This dissertation was presented by Tamara A. Sterling It was presented on July 11, 2019 and approved by: Ella Benson, Ed., Lead Advisor University of New England Michelle Collay, Ph., Secondary Advisor, University of New England Nancy Lee Garza Lewin, Ed., Affiliate Committee Member University of Houston v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To my three beautiful children, Brooklynn, Noah, and Diedra, I thank God every day for the unconditional love and support that you have given me throughout this journey. I’m blessed to be your Mom.

To the Chandler family, your love and support have made me a better person, and I will cherish being a part of your family forever. You believed in me when I needed words of encouragement or someone to watch the kids while I revised another chapter in peace. This journey could not have become a reality without the love and support you’ve always freely given my family and me for that I’m forever grateful. To my sister Lara, thank you for always listening to me and continuously encouraging me to complete the journey.

You are my role model, and I thank God every day that he blessed me with you as my sister. To Bill and Sylvia, my mentors in education and life. Thank you, for helping me make the most informed decisions about my career goals. To Nancy and Dave, thank you for believing that somewhere inside of me there lives a superhero! Finally, I want to also dedicate this work to the memory of Dorrie Lynn Gregory, my mother.

I watched you struggle as a single mom with three children, and we always had everything we needed. I want to thank you for showing me that with hard work and determination, I can accomplish whatever I put my mind to. I love you, and I thank you for everything you have done for our family. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.

1 Background of the Problem. 3 Statement of the Problem. 4 Purpose of the Study. 6 Assumptions, Scope, and Limitations.

6 Rationale and Significance of the Study. 8 Definition of Terms. 12 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 14 Organization of Literature Review.

16 Historical Perspective on School Reform. 16 A Nation at Risk. 17 Standards-Based Reform. 17 Early Indicators of School Reform Success.

19 Comprehensive School Reform. 19 No Child Left Behind. 21 The Virginia Accountability System. 26 vii Turnaround Policies.

35 Principal Leadership Competencies. 54 Lynchburg City Schools. 55 Norfolk City Schools. 70 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

71 Summary of the Results. 72 Context Evaluation Discussion. 73 Input Evaluation Discussion. 74 Process Evaluation Discussion.

76 Product Evaluation Discussion. 77 Themes of the Evaluation Results and Recommendations. 79 State Education Agency Leadership. 79 Content Coaching Professional Development.

80 School-Based Services Sustainability. 81 Monitoring and Accountability. 85 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2013 SOL Reading Assessment Data.

Lead Turnaround Partners Selected by Priority Schools. ELA School-Based Services Identified by the LTPs after Needs Assessment. Contractual School-Based Services Identified by the LTP. Process Evaluation: Frequency of LTP School-Based Services.

Baseline SOL Reading Assessment Data SY 2013–2014. 2013–2014 Average Baseline SOL Reading Data for Third through Fifth Grades. SOL Reading Performance Average for Grades Three–Five. SOL Reading Assessment Comparison Scores from 2013–2014 to 2015–2016.

Illustrates the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 SOL Reading Scores for Third through Fifth Grade. 79 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Conceptual framework of turnaround reform factors. 9 xi 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The focus of school turnaround has changed from isolated reform elements such as modifying reading programs, improving teachers, or redesigning individual schools to a more comprehensive approach of building the capacity of a school district’s ability to create sustained reform.

Department of Education (USDOE, 2002a) introduced the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Program that was authorized under Title I, Part F of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The focus of the CSR Program was to raise student achievement through proven methods and strategies that produce comprehensive school reform. Grants were awarded to approximately 3,000 Title I schools in all 50 states that demonstrated the greatest need to improve student achievement. Schools used the grants to contract outside partners experienced in school-wide reform to develop programs that addressed 11 components in this area (USDOE, 2002a).

This program became an important element for school improvement under the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind of 2001 (NCLB, 2002). The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) outlined national performance goals for all publicly funded educational institutions (NCLB, 2002). The legislation was enacted to significantly close the achievement gap for subgroups of students from racially and economically diverse backgrounds while annually increasing performance standards in reading, mathematics, and graduation rates (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2016). Under NCLB, every state was required to develop specific grade-level benchmarks.

Each state was required to administer assessments to evaluate the percentage of proficient students in specific schools and school districts as identified by their achievement of grade-level benchmarks (Shaul & Ganson, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 required each state to establish a timeline for 2 adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets. NCLB specifically stated that achievement level targets increase at least every three years with the provision that by the year 2014, 100% of all third through twelfth-grade students demonstrate proficiency of the state standards in English and mathematics. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, schools administer the Standards of Learning (SOL) assessments in Grades 3 through 8 in reading, mathematics, social studies, and science.

High school students in Grades 9 through 11 are administered SOL assessments in selected courses that result in a verified credit to determine academic proficiency and eligibility for graduation. As mandated by NCLB, each state must set benchmarks identified as Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) in reading and math, which reduce the proficiency gap between the highest and lowest performing schools (Virginia Department of Education [VDOE], 2013). Schools that successfully meet all AMOs are considered accredited and meeting standards. During 2012–2013 through 2016–2017, Virginia’s annual measurable objectives (AMOs) were as follows: 75% reading, 70% mathematics, 70% science and 70% history.

Schools that miss one or more performance indicators were identified as unaccredited and low-performing. If a school consistently misses meeting one or more academic performance measures the school will be identified as priority focus and in need of improvement (VDOE, 2013). In Virginia, five percent of the lowest-achieving Title I schools were labeled priority schools. The schools were required to select a turnaround model and a Lead Turnaround Partner to improve student achievement (VDOE, 2013).

According to Mass Insight (2010), the role of the LTP is to build capacity for instructional effectiveness to ensure continuous improvement for further growth. Based on state assessments administered during the 2013–2014 school year the Virginia Department of Education released a list of 36 low-performing schools. Schools 3 designated as priority received 1003(a) and/or 1003(g) federal school improvement grant funding to implement research-based school reform initiatives. Out of the 36 schools, four are priority elementary schools that will be represented in the study.

During the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, Lead Turnaround Partners were approved by the Virginia Department of Education to collaboratively work with schools identified as priority. A review of the literature indicates multiple states have utilized external partners to assist with school reform. Published reports highlight practices of LTPs and how states and districts can help or inhibit their improvement efforts in persistently low-achieving schools (Corbett, 2011). Areas of research include: existing marketplace (both supply and demand), the varying definitions of the LTP role, the organizational structures of the LTP’s roles and responsibilities, lessons learned, and recommendations for future LTP partnerships (Corbett, 2011).

However, there were no published studies found that focused on how LTP partnerships with the lowest performing priority schools led to successful student academic outcomes. Therefore, the focus of this study was to identify school-based services that the LTPs provided to priority elementary schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia relative to the improvement, if any, of third through fifth grade students’ Standard of Learning (SOL) reading assessment scores.