table of contents...houston, and san antonio metro area—had extremely low retention rates. indeed,...

Table of Contents

The Charter Schools Resource Journal

Vol. 11, No. 1

Editor’s Note ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Editorial Board ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

Chartering New Leadership: A Study of Professional Learning and Established Best Practices of Principals in Charter Schools in Urban Districts

by Matthew Ohlson, University of North Florida, and Christine Donis-Keller, Senior Associate, Public Consulting Group …….… 4

Culturally Responsive IEP Teaming: Collaboration with Indigenous Families by Krista James, University of Alaska Anchorage ……………………….. 23

Aligning Research Based Strategies to Charter School Turnaround Plans

by Antonio Corrales, University of Houston-Clear Lake ………………. 33

Response to Intervention (RTI) and Culturally Responsive Practice

by Krista James, University of Alaska Anchorage ………………………… 62

Call for Papers …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 74

1

Editor’s Note

The editorial board of The Charter Schools Resource Journal is pleased to present the Spring 2017 edition of the Journal. We have four excellent articles for your review:

First up, an article by Matthew Ohlson of the University of North Florida and Christine Donis-Keller, Senior Associate for Public Consulting Group. Matthew and Christine looked at professional development in charter schools and recommend customized training to get maximum impact.

Krista James from the University of Alaska Anchorage has two interesting contributions this issue. She examined the little-studied population of indigenous families with children receiving special education services. This literature review will help special educators who work with Alaska Native and American Indian families. Krista’s second article explains how a vision to meet student academic, social, and cultural needs is not being realized in culturally and linguistically diverse learners.

Antonio Corrales from the University of Houston-Clear Lake studied turnaround plans implemented in struggling charter schools. Nine strategies are identified with a recommendation that policy makers and governmental agencies may want to promote and monitor said recommendations.

The editorial board is always looking for high-quality articles. The submission guidelines are at the end of this issue. Prospective authors are also free to contact any editorial board member for more information. Contacts for these members are on the following page.

The Journal is a double-blind peer reviewed publication with a focus on charter schools. We are dedicated and determined to be part of the dissemination of practical and scholarly information to the larger community. The archives are maintained at Central Michigan University.

Thank you for your interest in the Journal!

Respectfully,

David E. Whale, Ed.D. Editor Central Michigan University

2

EDITORIAL BOARD

THE CHARTER SCHOOLSRESOURCE JOURNAL

2016-2017

Editorial Board

EditorDavid Whale, Ed.D. ProfessorCentral Michigan University [email protected]

William Leibfritz, Ph.D. Professor Central Michigan [email protected]

Aretha Marbley, Ph.D. Associate Professor Texas Tech [email protected]

Carolyn Brown, M.Ed.1st Grade TeacherAvondale, [email protected]

Jabari Paul Cain, Ph.D.Associate ProfessorMercer [email protected]

Larry Corbett, Ed.D. Professor Central Michigan University [email protected]

Xiaoping Li, Ed.D. Professor Central Michigan University [email protected]

Stephanie Mathson, M.L.I.S., M.A.Associate ProfessorCentral Michigan [email protected]

Mary Frances Agnello, Ph.D.Professor Texas Tech [email protected]

Riley JustisNational Charter Schools Institute Vice President for Technology and [email protected]

Associate EditorRobin Ward, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Rice University [email protected]

3

Running Head: CHARTERING NEW LEADERSHIP

Chartering New Leadership: A Study of Professional Learning and Established Best

Practices of Principals in Charter Schools in Urban Districts

Matthew Ohlson, Ph.D.

University of North Florida

Christine Donis-Keller, Ph.D.

Matthew Ohlson, Ph.D.

College of Education and Human Services

University of North Florida

1 UNF Drive, Building 57

Jacksonville, FL 32224-7699

352-474-9602

[email protected]

4

mailto:[email protected]

Running Head: CHARTERING NEW LEADERSHIP

Abstract

A statewide, professional learning initiative was launched to support charter

schools’ transition to the recently adopted standards using a customized, blended

education model. More than 500 schools and 4,000 educators participated in the training

combining online courses and job-embedded coaching. Research was conducted to 1)

examine teaching and learning outcomes and instructional shifts 2) determine successful

strategies to promote significant and lasting gains. Schools in the study had noteworthy

gains and documented changes in practice. Findings inform policy and practice based on

the participation of more than 100 schools from four of the nation’s largest urban schools

districts.

Keywords: professional development, school improvement, charter schools

5

Chartering New Leadership

Education Policies and Context

In order to guarantee that all students will graduate from high school with the knowledge

and skills needed to succeed in college and career, the Florida State Board of Education adopted

a succession of educational reforms, culminating in the adoption of new rigorous state standards

in early 2014 with the expectation that all schools would implement the standards by the

following school year (2014–2015). Successful transition to the new standards posed multiple

challenges to schools and educators across the state including the need for professional learning.

Implementation of the standards posed additional challenges for the 600+ charter schools

statewide because of their unique characteristics including size, demographics, location,

instructional focus, and financial need. Charter schools may have the autonomy to make

decisions regarding the allocation of resources to support efficient adoption of certain initiatives,

but many do not have a broad network and system level supports to draw on to leverage change.

An innovative, statewide, multi-year professional learning initiative focused on standards

alignment was launched to support charter schools’ transition to the recently adopted state

standards using a blended education model. More than 500 charter schools and 4,000 educators

participated in the professional development, which combined regional face-to-face sessions

with online courses and customized on-site coaching to meet the diverse needs of charter

schools.

A comprehensive study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of a professional

learning initiative helping charter schools simplify a multi-tiered system of instructional support

and practices specific to teachers and schools leaders. The purpose of the study was to focus on

1) documenting the impact on teaching and learning outcomes associated with the learning

6


initiative; and 2) determining successful strategies to promote significant and lasting gains in

priority, high-needs districts throughout the state.

The Program

In December 2013, the state Department of Education sought input from charter teachers,

administrators, and school districts to assess current knowledge and needs to transition to the

new standards with fidelity. This practice served to be quite effective as a wide variety of

participants from throughout the state helped to share the needs of large and small, urban, rural

and suburban charter schools. Professional development materials were then tailored to charter

schools based on findings to focus on areas of greatest identified needs for the implementation of

the standards.

Between the spring of 2013 and summer of 2014, the project provided face-to-face

professional development opportunities at five major venues throughout the state. The

professional learning was delivered in day-long sessions to charter schools educators and leaders

in order to implement Florida’s learning standards with fidelity. A total of 28 professional

development modules were delivered and specifically designed for the following audiences:

charter school English/Language Arts (ELA), discipline literacy, and math teachers (K-5, 6-12),

administrators, leadership teams, and governing board members. The modules were developed to

be sequential so as to build skills and increase capacity. Sixteen modules were developed for

teachers, four for administrators, six for leadership teams, and two for governing board members.

All materials, videos, training PowerPoint, and research were housed on a single site. Schools

that could not send large teams to training could send representatives and take the training back

to their schools, thus accessing all materials on a shared website. Based on session evaluations,

7


96 percent of participants rated the professional development activities as Useful, Very Useful, or

Extremely Useful to their role within the charter school.

In 2014, the Florida Department of Education extended this professional learning

initiative to re-design the professional learning as e-learning modules based on decreasing

enrollments and participation in the face-to-face training sessions. Responses from charter

schoolteachers and leaders expressed concern over leaving their schools to attend professional

development as the key reason for the drop in attendance. This concern was magnified within the

charter school community based on the multiple roles that educators and school leaders play

within their school sites (Margolis & Nagel, 2006).

Therefore, the state department of education developed 28 e-learning courses to allow

participants the opportunity to complete the courses at a time, pace, and place that accounted for

the busy schedules of educators. This coursework was designed as a blended learning

opportunity whereby schools take the online course and receive customized coaching and follow-

up at their school site for each completed course. The coursework was designed specifically for

charter schools and the on-site coaching was created with input from leadership teams and

teachers to help support a smooth transition to the rigor and challenges of these standards.

Beyond the convenience factor, the cost of delivery and implementation was significantly

reduced when harnessing the power of online learning courses, thus serving as an effective and

cost saving model for charters throughout the nation.

Perspective(s) or theoretical framework

The presence and influence of charter schools within the educational landscape is

significant. Between the 1999–2000 to 2012–13 school years, the number of students enrolled in

public charter schools increased from 0.3 million to 2.3 million (NCES, 2015). Although

8


improving student outcomes is a primary goal of charter schools, there is conflicting research

documenting the impact of charter school attendance on student achievement (CREDO, 2013;

Wohlstetter, Smith & Farrell, 2013). Several recent studies illustrate a range of positive impacts

charter schools have on student success including offering increased choice for students in

underperforming areas, increased student achievement for minority and/or high poverty students,

and effective organizational policies including smaller enrollments that enable the use of ability

grouping in math or English classes (Angrist, J. D., Pathak, P. A., & Walters, C. R., 2011);

CREDO, 2013; Gleason et al. 2010; Hoxby, C. M., Murarka, S., & Kang, J., 2009. But research

has also highlighted a range of negative outcomes including lack of student stability, lack of

established routines and procedures (Bifulco & Ladd, 2006; Hoxby, 2003; Schwenkenberg &

VanderHoff, 2015).

In addition to the research on student outcomes, there have been numerous studies

looking at the collective experience of charter school stakeholders including parents, educators,

and school administration. A recent study surveying charter school parents revealed that when

parents graded their child's charter school on a standard grading scale (A, B, C, D, F), the

overwhelming majority of parents (70%) gave their child's charter school an “A.” In contrast,

only 26 percent of parents gave their child's traditional public school an “A.” (Wohlstetter,

Nayfack, & Mora-Flores, 2008). Reasons for this approval by parents has been attributed to the

quality teaching and learning, the perception of safer schools, stronger parent involvement at

charter schools, and academic reputation. (Lacey, C. H., Enger, J. M., Maldonado, N., &

Thompson, S., 2006; Torres, 2014).

9


Yet, when analyzing the unique experiences of teachers and school administration, the

research is mixed when looking exclusively at charter schools. For example, a study examining

principal retention in Texas revealed Charter schools--located primarily in the Dallas/Fort Worth,

Houston, and San Antonio metro area—had extremely low retention rates. Indeed, only 50% of

the principals returned after one year and only 36% after five years (Fuller & Young, 2009). In

contrast, the data emerging from KIPP schools experienced an 82 retention rate, higher than the

72% retention rate seen within traditional school principal data (School Leaders Network, 2014).

Factors impacting principal success and retention include career coaching that focuses

specifically on improving instructional leadership, strong trusting relationships with peers,

developing and implementing specific school improvement initiatives( Darling-Hammond, L.,

Meyerson, D., LaPointe, M., & Orr, M. T., 2010; Honig, 2012)

For teachers, the research also follows this same pattern of mixed results. University

of Washington–Bothell’s Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) revealed that teachers

working in urban charter schools are 31% less likely to switch schools than similar teachers

working in traditional public schools based on numerous factors including increased autonomy,

shared decision-making, and increased school community engagement (Fusarelli, 2010). Yet,

research also suggests charter teachers leave schools earlier than their traditional counterparts

based on factors such as lack of administrator support, issues with curriculum and instruction,

and lack of a consistent school structure and culture because of consistent turnover of staff

(Miron & Applegate, 2007; Stuit & Smith, 2009).

Professional Development for Charter Schools

The research suggests that teachers’ and school leaders’ retention rates at charters are

often impacted by the ability of school leadership and the school community to create a

10


consistent culture of instructional leadership and active engagement in teaching and learning

development and implementation. These initiatives can be supported with fidelity through the

effective use of authentic professional development (Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree,

A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S., 2009). Shared professional development of teachers and

school leaders helps to facilitate and support the development of a community of learners who

work toward common goals and make decisions based on shared experiences and results

(Feiman-Nemser, 2003; Watkins, 2005).

Specific professional development activities have shown to have the greatest impact.

Activities that focus on applicable content knowledge; opportunities for engaging, active

learning and integration with customized learning activities emerged as having significant,

positive effects on teachers’ increases in knowledge and skills and changes in classroom practice

(Garet, et al., 2006). In addition, effective professional development needs to be an ongoing,

collective process with members from the same school community based on specific user needs

and interests using authentic data and timely information (Patton, Parker & Tannehil, 2015)

The Study

Evaluation Questions

The evaluation of the project was designed to answer three broad questions:

1. How has the participation in the project changed with the transition to a

customized, blended learning opportunity in comparison to the traditional,

collective face-to-face training at regional locations?

2. What has been the change in student achievement in participating charter

schools measured through school performance on state assessments,

attendance, and discipline outcomes?

11


3. How has participation in the Project affected the capacity of charter teachers

and leaders to implement the State Curriculum Standards?

4. What types of impact has the project had on curriculum, instruction, and

assessment in the participating schools that can be directly associated with the

Project?

The study uses a mixed methods approach drawing on both quantitative methods to

analyze student outcome data as well as qualitative methods to examine educational strategies

and practices within a sample of charter schools that participated in the state-supported, blended

professional learning services. The study first focuses on all participants within the statewide

initiative to answer the first question. Then, questions 2-4 are addressed from a sample of eight

participating charter schools selected from the 500+ schools served by the project to represent

multiple characteristics of the broader charter school landscape including rural, suburban, and

urban districts (including four of the nation’s largest school systems). Schools in the sample

accessed a range of professional learning opportunities offered throughout the multi-year project

at the highest rates among participating schools and demonstrated early success in

implementation of the standards.

School-level student outcome data on the state standardized tests, attendance data,

demographic data, and other school characteristics for all schools in the state were obtained from

the State Department of Education’s PK20 education data warehouse and related reports

provided on the DOE website. Outcome data for 2012–2013 and 2013–2014, are included in

these analyses to understand achievement trends over time within the sample schools compared

with the state overall.

12


Qualitative data included interviews, focus groups, and observations of classrooms and

professional learning events at each sample school. Overall, individual and focus group

interviews were conducted with 42 principals or directors, assistant principals, and teachers and

brief classroom observations were conducted in over 40 classrooms within the sampled schools.

Results

This section presents findings from the research including schools’ responses to the approach

to professional learning, documented best practices within the schools in the sample, as well as

changes in student achievement and attendance. The analyses present a preliminary portrait of

achievement trends among the charter schools that participated in the project and demonstrated

early success in implementation of the Standards.

Achievement and Attendance Outcomes

These sections examine one-year changes (2012–2013 to 2013–2014) in student achievement

in reading, mathematics, science, and writing as well as aggregated measures of points earned in

comparison with state averages.

The analyses showed some positive results for the schools included in this study:

• Five schools (63 percent) showed growth in six or more measures.

• The majority (93 percent of schools) in the study achieved higher than the state average

in all subject areas in both years.

• Study schools made equal progress in increasing the percent satisfactory or above in

mathematics and reading (63 percent). Among the schools that showed growth, 50%

showed growth of five or more points.

• Five schools (63 percent) gained points in reading for the lowest quartile students.

13


• Three schools (38 percent) had growth of 17 points or more mathematics for the lowest

quartile students.

• Points earned for the majority of schools (63 percent) exceeded the state average by 9 or

more points.

• Attendance improved in almost every school in the study (75 percent), though in four

cases, it was a gain of less than one percent; in the schools where it declined it was by a

similarly modest percentage (less than one percent).

Customized Professional Learning

Several aspects of the delivery of professional learning were highlighted as critical to

increasing schools’ capacity to implement the standards in the sample schools. Specifically,

interviewees spoke clearly to the importance of the face to face coaching sessions as well as the

content covered. For the schools that participated in the blended support (online combined with

face to face sessions), interviewees felt that the customized approach taken with their school and

the regularity of the visits played a particularly important role in supporting growth in the

collaborative culture in the schools, their understanding of the standards, and taking a strategic

approach to implementation of the state Standards. Each school made different choices about

how to access onsite professional development either through weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly

coaching sessions depending on their needs and time available for professional learning.

A principal described making these decisions in partnership with the project facilitators,

“We just gave the ideas of what we wanted and we let them guide us to courses and content. As

far as the onsite, they cover transitioning to the standards, but we also would tell them, ‘this is an

issue we’re dealing with right now’ and they bring it in [to the discussion].”

14


Interviewees also emphasized the impact that multiple encounters with the same

professional learning coaches had. Repeated onsite sessions with the same staff enabled the

coaches and school staff to reflect on, and build on, work initiated in previous sessions together.

Teachers also appreciated the hands-on work that happened onsite, the focus on strategies and

tools that could be applied immediately in their classrooms, and the debrief that occurred at the

next onsite session.

Documented Best Practices

The study examined the instructional and leadership practices found across the various

successful sample schools that promoted the implementation of the standards and were related to

the professional learning initiative. Two areas in which schools identified changes in teaching

practice include a) increased student engagement and b) improved writing instruction in schools

that represented a wide range of student, demographic and resource diversity.

Increasing Student Engagement

One principal noted that while they had engaging, hands-on lessons in place, many of her

teachers were still measuring engagement by ‘the look’—students expressions during the lesson.

Project facilitators’ support helped teachers differentiate between compliance and engagement:

“Are they really in there or are they just looking like they’re in there?” She cited the increasing

use of exit tickets for personal assessments of learning, as well as sticky notes, white boards,

voting cards, and hand gestures to promote teachers real time feedback on students’ level of

engagement. Administrators also cited the introduction of an observation rubric with ‘look-fors’

specifically geared toward student engagement.

Improved Writing Instruction

15


Another area in which schools had determined immediate need was in navigating the

required shifts in writing instruction. Teachers reported being encouraged by the increased rigor

in the writing expectations in the State Standards, but also experiencing challenges in how to

integrate writing consistently across the curriculum and accessing quality resources to support

writing instruction. Teachers across the study schools reported teaching writing differently—

requiring students to work with complex text, looking for specific evidence, and learning how to

integrate that into their writing, citing the work, constructing arguments with evidence—

attributable, in part, to support from professional learning staff both through coaching and

sharing resources. They cited a range of supports including onsite workshops where teachers

brought student work to share, reviewing anchor papers, the introduction of a self-assessment

rubric to identify areas of need in their ELA practice, increased awareness among administrators

regarding standards and expectations, an ELA focused walkthrough tool identifying appropriate

“look fors”, strategies observed through online modules, and mutual teacher observations

through activities such as lesson study.

Scientific or scholarly significance of the study

Although charter schools have a strong foothold in public education in nearly all states,

understanding of the charter school performance is still a growing area of research. This study

sought to document the effective instructional and leadership practices associated with increased

teaching and learning outcomes related to a statewide professional learning initiative. The

targeted, blended professional learning and corresponding implementation at the sample schools

was related to changes in schools’ capacity to enact the standards and in teaching practices, as

well as achievement gains in comparison to state counterparts.

16


The findings will help to inform the policies associated with the creation, support, and

expansion of successful charter models while helping to improve the selection and/or elimination

process of underperforming charter schools that fail to harness outcome-driven strategies proven

to impact students’ achievement in high needs areas. The study findings will also be of interest to

policymakers based on the participation of more than 35% of all state “Corrective Action Priority

Schools” and more than 100 schools participating from four of the nation’s largest urban schools

districts.

Of particular interest to various stakeholders is the replicability, lasting effectiveness, and

cost savings embedded that blended learning offers in comparison to traditional professional

development offerings (Matzat, 2013; Owston, Sinclair, & Wideman, 2008). By implementing a

two-tiered approach to professional learning, including content and instruction delivered online

along with customized coaching based on district/school/classroom data, there is increased

opportunity for authentic learning that accounts for the demands of participants teaching and

leadership schedules/demands. The online delivery of content ensures that participants acquire

the knowledge base needed to understand and implement best practices while the coaching helps

to support the fidelity of implementation of these strategies. Rather than pay for training that

often consists of teachers viewing generic content, the coaching model requires less time for

outside support and could ultimately be supported internally through a sustainable, “train-the-

trainer” model (Onchwari & Keengwe, 2008).

This research is of particular importance for charter schools that are often faced with

inadequate human, fiscal and professional development resources as well as limited school

district support. This customized, on-demand professional learning initiative was specifically

customized to meet the needs of charter schools, based on the mindset of building capacity

17


amongst the stakeholders of charter schools, including teachers, vice principals, principals, and

the school governing board. Perhaps the most salient importance of this research is to illustrate

the importance of collaboration and support from other exemplary school leaders from charter

schools across the state to share best practices related to successful curriculum standards

implementation. For example, one school leader shared via webinar to over eighty principals

how she used data to inform policies and practices at a charter school in Miami-Dade County. A

teacher from northern Florida demonstrated to other classroom teacher from more than 15

counties how she empowered students through the use of immersive learning activities including

a historical role-playing event. At yet another charter school in southern Florida, a principal

allowed guests from surrounding counties to observe how their school utilized numerous

curriculum resources to increase student engagement, collaboration, and deeper knowledge

within the teaching and learning environment. Professional development that is customized,

timely, and cost-effective can help meet the diverse needs of charter schools and can offer a

dynamic platform for charter schools to collaborate and share bets practices.

18


References

Angrist, J. D., Pathak, P. A., & Walters, C. R. (2011). Explaining charter school

effectiveness (No. w17332). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bifulco, R. & Ladd, H. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence

from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1), 50-90

Cremata, E., Davis, D., Dickey, K., Lawyer, K., Negassi, Y., Raymond, M., & Woodworth J. D.

(2013) National charter school study. Center for Research on Education Outcomes

(CREDO), Stanford University.

Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., LaPointe, M., & Orr, M. T. (2010). Preparing principals

for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).

Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff

Development Council.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 25-

29.

Fuller, E. J., & Young, M. D. (2009). Tenure and retention of newly hired principals in Texas.

Austin, TX: University Council for Educational Administration, Department of

Educational Administration, University of Texas at Austin.

Fusarelli, L. D. (2002). Charter schools: Implications for teachers and administrators. The

Clearing House, 76(1), 20-24.

19


Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes

professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.

American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C.C., & Dwoyer, E. (2010). The evaluation of charter school

impacts: Final report (NCEE 2010-4029). National Center for Education Evaluation and

Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education,

Washington, DC. Retrieved 16 March, 2015, from

http://www.mathematicampr.com/publications/pdfs/education/charter_school_impacts.pd

f

Honig, M. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office

administrators support principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733-774.

Hoxby, C. M., ed. (2003). The economics of school choice. A National Bureau of Economic

Research Conference Report. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hoxby, C. M., Murarka, S., & Kang, J. (2009). “How New York City’s Charter Schools Affect

Student Achievement: August 2009 Report.” Second report in series. Cambridge, MA:

New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project, September 2009.

Lacey, C. H., Enger, J. M., Maldonado, N., & Thompson, S. (2006). Charter school

accountability: Listening to our stakeholders. Journal of School Choice, 1(2), 83-100.

Margolis, J., & Nagel, L. (2006). Education reform and the role of administrators in mediating

teacher stress. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4), 143-159.

Matzat, U. (2013). Do blended virtual learning communities enhance teachers' professional

development more than purely virtual ones? A large scale empirical comparison.

Computers & Education, 60(1), 40-51.

20

http://www.mathematicampr.com/publications/pdfs/education/charter_school_impacts.pdf

http://www.mathematicampr.com/publications/pdfs/education/charter_school_impacts.pdf


Miron, G., & Applegate, B. (2007). Teacher attrition in charter schools. East Lansing, MI: Great

Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.

National Center for Education Statistics (2015). Charter School Enrollment. Retrieved June 23,

2015 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgb.asp

Onchwari, G., & Keengwe, J. (2008). The impact of a mentor-coaching model on teacher

professional development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(1), 19-24.

Owston, R., Sinclair, M., & Wideman, H. (2008). Blended learning for professional

development: An evaluation of a program for middle school mathematics and science

teachers. The Teachers College Record, 110(5), 1033-1064.

Patton, K., Parker, M., & Tannehill, D. (2015). Helping teachers help themselves professional

development that makes a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 99(1), 26-42.

doi:10.1177/0192636515576040

School Leaders Network (2014). Churn: The High Cost of Principal Turnover. Retrieved,

February 16, 2016 from

https://connectleadsucceed.org/sites/default/files/principal_turnover_cost.pdf

Schwenkenberg, J., & VanderHoff, J. (2015). Why do charter schools fail? An analysis of charter

school survival in New Jersey. Contemporary Economic Policy, 33(2), 300-314.

Stuit, D. A., and Smith, T. M. (2009). Teacher turnover in charter schools. Research Brief.

National Center on School Choice: Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/documents/stuit_smith_ncspe.pdf

Torres, A. C. (2014). “Are we architects or construction workers?” Re-examining teacher

autonomy and turnover in charter schools. Education policy analysis archives, (22)124.

21

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgb.asp

https://connectleadsucceed.org/sites/default/files/principal_turnover_cost.pdf


Watkins, P. (2005). The principal's role in attracting, retaining, and developing new teachers:

Three strategies for collaboration and support. The Clearing House: A Journal of

Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 79(2), 83-87.

Wohlstetter, P., Nayfack, M. B., & Mora-Flores, E. (2008). Charter schools and “customer”

satisfaction: Lessons from field testing a parent survey. Journal of School Choice, 2(1),

66-84.

Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., Farrell, C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school

performance in perspective. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

22

1 Running Head: CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE IEP TEAMING

Culturally Responsive IEP Teaming: Collaboration with Indigenous Families

Krista P. James

Assistant Professor of Special Education

University of Alaska Anchorage

23

CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE IEP TEAMING

2

Abstract

Little research exists identifying strategies for successful collaboration with

indigenous families whose children are receiving special education services. The purpose

of this literature review is to identify strategies to assist special education teams in

collaborating successfully with Alaska Native and American Indian families.

24


3

Culturally Responsive IEP Teaming: Collaboration with Indigenous Families

What strategies should be used to facilitate culturally responsive IEP meetings for

Alaska Native & American Indian Families? This is a question that is often raised by

special educators who are working to get the best results possible for the students and

families they are working with. One of the main problems we encounter are that IEP

meetings and other meetings that occur around special education services, are a very

westernized construct of how to work with families and engage them in services. The

purpose of this short literature review is to evaluate the current literature for strategies to

assist special education teams in working successfully with Alaska Native and American

Indian families who are supporting children with disabilities.

During this review of the literature, it was noted early on that there is very little

research available on working with Alaska Native families. There is more information on

working with American Indian families, so many of the strategies discussed may need to

be adapted to meet the team’s individualized needs. It was also noted in Bird, Lee, &

Lopez (2013) that research strategies are also very westernized and may not lead to

reliable results with non-western cultural groups, and in Harry (2008) that culturally and

linguistically diverse families have significantly low participation rates in research

studies and surveys due to a combination of factors, such as: logistical challenges,

English literacy, level of education, and mistrust of the educational system. The

strategies identified for the purpose of this review, fell into five main categories:

Perspectives on Disability, Communication Strategies, Family Outreach & Engagement,

and Representation.

Perspectives On Disability

25


4

Lamorey (2002) examines the effects of culture on special education services.

One of the key areas discussed in this article is taking into consideration the family’s

views on disability, since it may vary greatly depending on their culture. “Understanding

and building on a family’s cultural interpretations of disability is essential in creating

partnerships with parents of children receiving special education services. Parent beliefs

about the nature of disability are related to parent beliefs about and participation in

treatment and intervention” (p. 68). It can often be difficult, as a professional to look at

major concepts, such as causes of a child’s disability from a view outside of our own

beliefs. For example, if a parent tells us that they believe that their child’s disability was

caused by god punishing them for a sin they committed, we may be focused on giving

scientific reasons as to why their view is wrong and our view is right.

Lamorey (2002) discusses the concept duality in beliefs and the need for this to be

accepted by professionals. This means that the family may have culturally specific

beliefs about the causes of their child’s disability, the treatments that should be used, the

future goals for their child, etc., but they also may want to access westernized treatments

and services in combination with the traditional options of their culture. Professionals

should be open to supporting families in the methods they choose and open and willing to

listen to their views on the supports they receiving, such as spiritual counseling,

traditional healing, home remedies, etc. Often if families are able to discuss these beliefs

with their team and feel acceptance, then they are more likely to trust the team members

and have a better relationship.

26


5

Lamorey (2002) also discussed the importance having these strong cultural ties

and beliefs, because families who have them tend to have higher levels of resiliency due

to the cultural beliefs providing protective factors.

Family Outreach & Engagement

The methods used by school teams to reach out to families and engage them in

school activities are only effective if they are culturally responsive to the families needs

and valid for the families who they are seeking to engage. Methods that work for middle-

class, Caucasian families in the school, such as emails, may not work to reach families

who are not in that demographic. This may be due to limited access, limited English

proficiency, or it might not be a preferred method of communication. The following

articles looked at methods for adapting outreach methods in order to engage families.

Nguyen (2012) examined the literature to determine supports that need to be

provided for English Language Learners who have disabilities, in the school system.

Parent participation was one of the key areas that were determined to be an important

factor in success. The author found that having an open-door policy makes parents feel

welcome in the school. They found that it was important to encourage parents to send

notes or call about any questions or concerns they have in order to keep an open line of

communication. Teachers should also demonstrate a genuine interest in the child, their

community, and their culture.

Griner & Stewart (2013) reviewed research that was conducted in order to produce a

practical tool for school staff to use to guide their practice in the direction of being

culturally responsive. The research conducted was a series of interviews with parents and

community members from culturally diverse backgrounds. The authors focused on three

27


6

major themes that were clear from the interviews: outreach, representation, and

classroom management. Information collected during the interviews were then turned

into suggestions for schools and included in their tool, A Culturally Responsive Teaching

Checklist for Schools and Teachers. The tool had many items that focused on family

outreach and engagement, including: the school hosting events for families of RCELD

(racially, culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse) students, providing

opportunities for family members of RCELD students to participate in regularly

scheduled meetings outside the school setting; multiple attempts are made to involve

family members; school administration promotes staff knowledge of diverse cultures;

staff develops relationships with surrounding RCELD communities to assist the school

with translation, cultural interpretation, and other needs and also to elicit services

appropriate to students needs; home visits/regular phone calls are encouraged to gain

insight into students’ lives and support systems, as well as to garner parent/family

member input in the decision making process; parents/families/community members are

invited regularly into classrooms; school staff makes continuous, positive, contact at all

times, even over summer; school staff celebrate special events in students’ lives; school

staff makes attempts to understand what’s important to families during holidays; school

staff encourages and provides a space for parent support groups to help parents from

RCELD backgrounds become more involved; families encouraged to participate in

problem solving discussions to include information about students home and family

culture, language, and social history; life stressors are assessed; parents are consulted to

gain a better understanding of parent expectations for the student (Griner & Stewart,

2013).

28


7

Communication Strategies

Communication is a key component to any collaborative practice. Unfortunately,

professionals sometimes do not take into account cultural communication differences

and/or limited English proficiency with the families they are working with. The

following articles identified communication strategies to consider when working with

Alaska Native and American Indian families.

Ryan, Murphy, Harvy, Nygren, Kinavey, & Ongtooguk (2006) interviewed

Alaska Native elders and parents of children with disabilities about what early

interventionists could do to help them. They found that, nine themes emerged from these

interviews: 1) take time to build relationships; 2) help families feel less isolated; 3) listen

to families; 4) silence is ok; 5) speak slowly and clearly; 6) don’t use acronyms; 7) move

slowly and be patient; 8) always follow-up; and 9) ask parents if this is their “picture” of

their child.

Griner & Stewart (2013) suggest that “Parents are encouraged to help their children

maintain their native language while learning English, printed materials (bulletin boards,

school publications, etc.) are available in home languages of all children in the school,

[and] school staff provides voice mails in native languages of who may not be literate in

their first language” (p. 608).

Representation

In order for families to fully participate in their child’s education, they must feel

they have representation on the educational team, in the school, and on the committees

making educational decisions and/or advising administration. The following article

29


8

examined representation and identified strategies for promoting it in the educational

system.

Griner & Stewart (2013) recommend that “School staff actively seek the involvement

and decision making input of families of RCELD students and are committed to learning

about the culture of those families and empowering them to become an active participant

in the school and their child’s education.” They go on to suggest that “problem-solving

teams include parents/family members of RCELD students; staff confer with families

about home expectations, values, customs, and behavior management practices, there is

clear evidence that RCELD students and their families are viewed as assets; parents,

families, and community members from RCELD backgrounds are invited regularly to

share in school processes and to share their knowledge, expertise, and experiences with

school staff and students; school staff discuss student’s culture and conducts systematic

analysis of its impact on school performance” (p. 608).

Conclusion

Collaboration with families has been determined to be a key indicator of school

success and is even defined in special education law as a necessary practice in order to

meet compliance standards. The problem with this is that there are no guidelines as to

how to meet this obligation with families who may not come from a westernized culture

or system of beliefs. Without these guidelines, professionals working with families of

Alaska Native and American Indian students are not able to properly engage these

families in the special education system of practice. Many generalized and specific

strategies for collaborating with families have been identified throughout the literature

and can serve as a guide for best practice, but this is not to say that every strategy

30


9

identified will work with every family who identifies as Alaska Native and/or American

Indian. We know that culture is complex and not necessarily based off of race and

ethnicity. It is affected by many factors, most of which will likely be unknown to the

team. The information included in this review will need to be used in combination with

the team’s knowledge of the family as a guide to thinking about services for the families

they are working with.

31


10

References

Bird, C., Lee, T., & Lopez, N. (2013). Leadership and Accountability in American Indian

Education: Voices from New Mexico. American Journal of Education, 119(4),

539-564.

Griner, A., & Stewart, M. (2013). Addressing the Achievement Gap and

Disproportionality Through the Use of Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices.

Urban Education, 48(4), 585-621.

Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families:

Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372-388.

Lamorey, S. (2002). The Effects of Culture on Special Education Services. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 34(5), 67-71.

Nguyen, H. (2012). General Education and Special Education Teachers

Collaborate to Support English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities.

Issues in Teacher Education, 21(1), 127-152.

Ryan, S., Murphy, B., Harvey, S., Nygren, K., Kinavey, E., & Ongtooguk, P. (2006). The

Way of the Human Being: Supporting Alaska Native Families Who Have a Child

With a Disability. Young Exceptional Children, 9(12), 12-19.

32


Antonio Corrales, Ed.D. Assistant Professor

Educational Leadership University of Houston-Clear Lake

College of Education 2700 Bay Area Blvd.

Houston, Texas 77058 Phone: (281) 283-3688

E-mail: [email protected]

Please direct all correspondence to: Antonio Corrales, [email protected]

33

mailto:corrales@


Abstract

This study visits the general concept of turnaround plans within struggling charter schools and

districts, as well as examines nine research based strategies to implement when developing and

applying turnaround plans. One of the main conclusions of this document establishes that in

order to increase academic performance and the effectiveness of turnaround plans, policy makers

and government educational agencies may want to consider promoting and monitoring the

learning and implementation of these nine strategies.

Keywords: turnaround plans, effective strategies, struggling charter schools and districts

34

Introduction

The discussion about publicly funded charter schools and their effectiveness to produce

academic performance has increased considerably during the past year (Chabrier, Cohodes, &

Oreopoulos, 2016). Even when charter schools commonly operate with a high degree of

independence in terms of curriculum, finance, human resources, and general operations, they

tend not to be exempt from standardized testing and state legislation (Cohodes, 2016). This

reality has force Charter Schools to comply with all the customary state rules and regulations to

include turnaround plans (Fryer, 2014). Given that charter schools and districts are growing at a

fast pace within the United States (U.S.) educational system during the past years by representing

five percent of all public elementary and secondary students in the country (Mills, 2013;

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2015), and considering that during 2014

approximately three percent of all charter schools were closed (National Alliance for Public

Charter Schools, 2015), charter school leaders should constantly look for educational instruments

to help their organizations to remain open and operational.

Every aspect of the educational world starts in the classrooms (Carman, 2013; Coleman

& LaRocque, 1988; Hall & Hord, 2011; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004;

Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005; Senge, 2000; Smith, 2008; Supovitz, 2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006;

Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). The realization of that simple and unavoidable reality may

either make or break a charter school district. When an organization interiorizes the fact that

whatever happens in the classrooms is going to transcend to every aspect and every level of an

institution, then that educational entity has gained big steps towards excellence. Occasionally,

educators and top managers tend to overcomplicate things by looking for secondary issues when

35

trying to turn around a low-performing school district. The reality is that great educational

environments are contagious, and this starts with the most basic nucleus: the classroom.

Starting with the classrooms does not mean forgetting about the other aspects that

configure a highly functional school district. The reality is that highly functional organizations

have similar characteristics, regardless of the sector (Baker, 2012). These organizations tend to

have a clear purpose, defined and standardized systems in place, open and visibly distinct

communication channels, a culture of accountability and celebration of success, and a clear

embracement of professionalism, teamwork, and empowerment. Also, they are mainly results

driven. In the specific case of charter schools, the reality is that when a school teacher closes the

door and starts the dynamic with the students, everything else becomes secondary in regards to

functionality.

Clearly, being immersed in a highly effective charter school is an ideal situation.

However, like anything else, being in the comfort zone excessively may prevent someone from

learning (Carman, 2013). In other words, spending an entire career in schools where everything

works well may bring great disadvantages when facing adversity. People in highly effective

schools have a tendency to think that everybody else operates under the same variables and

circumstances. People who work in highly productive entities assume that procedures and

systems are in place everywhere. The reality is totally different. Fixing a broken school or a

campus could become a monumental task because occasionally even the simplest things do not

work (Waters & Marzano, 2006). In fact, it may be easier to start from the scratch by creating a

brand new organization. Sadly, most of the times that is not possible. The reality is that the only

way to effectively undo the damage in a struggling school is by approaching the task

systematically and strategically.

36

Let’s consider a classroom as a microcosm of an entire universe. In a highly effective

classroom the students are constantly engaged. They are permanently learning. There are clear

rules, expectations, and consequences. There is an open and respectful communication between

the teacher and the students. The teacher plans the lessons carefully and after considering all

types of learning styles when creating the activities, the teacher follows a lesson cycle and is

constantly assessing student progress. In general, a highly effective classroom has a great

learning environment that is student centered. This reality can be extrapolated at every level

within the school and district when such experiences are encouraged and become the main focus

of an organization. But what happens in struggling and dysfunctional schools? How do they

become dysfunctional and how do we fix them?

The predominant factor in a struggling school is the lack of academic performance across

the board (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Clearly, this characteristic is a just a symptom of a major

disease. In general terms, at a dysfunctional school teachers do not cooperate with each other to

develop lesson plans. Students are mostly disengaged. Parents are poorly informed and involved.

The school leadership is constantly making isolated decisions without considering data. There is

no accountability. Procedures are not followed. The budgetary process is based on unrealistic

projections. Few stakeholders are involved when developing the budget. The school facilities are

poorly maintained. Technology is obsolete and dysfunctional. Student services such as food

services and transportation are poor. The internal and external customer service are deficient.

Teacher and administrative mobility is high. Student enrollment is constantly declining but

expenditures are kept at the same level. School staff is constantly thinking of how to survive

instead of how to serve students. The morale is mostly low. The educational community is

complacent with the status quo, and they assume it as normal. Local politics plays a protagonist

37

role and is more important than anything else. Last, in general, school and district leaders are

incompetent and lack a clear idea of how to improve the system (Waters & Marzano, 2006).

It is well documented that the characteristics of struggling charter schools and districts

could be summarized within the following items (Smith, 2008):

• Lack of academic performance: not meeting state and federal academic standards.

• Poor financial status: not meeting state and federal financial standards.

• Dysfunctional processes and organizations, or lack of them.

• Hostile working environment.

• Strong influence of internal politics on school systems.

• Strong influence of school culture on internal systems: complicated dynamic between

the main stakeholders in the educational community.

• Incompetence among key stakeholders and self-denial about lack of knowledge.

• No meaningful, truthful, and congruent sense of direction.

According to Smith (2008), struggling charter schools and districts face specific threats, such as:

• State educational agency warnings, close monitoring, and potential closure.

• Low morale based on high levels of stress and pressure.

• Denial from key stakeholders in regards to the future: living in the bubble – “that will

never happen to me…”

• Difficulties acquiring qualified and effective personnel based on reputation and

current situation: 80% to 85% of school budgets is based on personnel.

• Lack of general trust from the educational community.

38

• Lack of control in regards to the future: school destiny is in the hands of others,

which implies playing defense instead of offense in terms of educational strategies

and systems.

• Expected to perform even with current problems.

Turnaround Plans

A common tendency during the past years among struggling school charter districts and

campuses is to adopt turnaround plans. A turnaround plan is a systemic approach that

comprehensively changes an academically struggling charter districts or campuses and produces

significant and sustainable gains in achievement in order to meet state and federal standards

(Carman, 2013). These plans are usually developed and implemented by a multi-professional

team that includes main stakeholders from a campus, the school district, and in occasions the

state education agency (Coleman & LaRocque, 1988). In practical terms, a turnaround plan

should address the systemic root cause through work across a majority of support systems and

critical success factors (Walsh & Maniotis, 2014). According to Smith (2008), there are

important aspects to consider when developing a turnaround plan. On aspect is related to support

systems: processes and procedures; the organizational structure; the communication channels;

and the capacity and resources from the organization. Another aspect deals with critical success

factors such as: academic performance in terms of curriculum and instruction; quality data to

drive instruction and planning; leadership effectiveness; increased learning time; family and

educational community engagement; school climate; and teacher quality (Coleman & LaRocque,

1988)

On the other hand, a systemic root cause is a permanent condition that affects most levels

of a campus or a district (Hall & Hord, 2011). This affecting factors could be extensive to the

39

majority of departments in a district, grade levels, core subjects, student groups, and staff

members. The root cause is identified as the primary factor leading to low performance

academically or financially (Miller, & Maellaro, 2016). Finally, another important concept

related to turnaround plans are the outcomes. According to Hall and Hord (2011), the outcome of

a turnaround plan is how the systemic root cause will be resolved so that a campus or a district

can show significant and sustainable gains in achievement, in order to meet state and federal

standards within a specific time frame. In other words, the outcome of a turnaround plan implies

what will be different, particularly in regards to the systemic root cause, as a result of the

implementation of the turnaround strategies.

Strategies for Turnaround Plans

Building Strong Leadership Teams

Research overwhelmingly has shown a strong correlation between the capacity of a

leadership team in terms of preparation and experience versus the leadership team’s ability to

produce results (Coleman & LaRocque, 1988; Leithwood et al., 2004; Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005;

Smith, 2008; Waters et al., 2003). The common consequential question would have been, “How

does one define strong leadership?” There are common denominators when defining strong

leadership that could be applicable to any industry or situation. First, one must have a clear

vision about where the organization is going. That initial vision does not necessarily have to be

based on data, and it is a pure visualization of where the organization needs to be directed. The

second step is to defining strong leadership teams is to create a follow-up vision and strategy,

based on past and current data: measurable goals and the means by which to reach the desired

objectives. The final step is to assemble the correct team. This means carefully selecting the right

40

leader and personnel for specific positions: principals, assistant principals, top management, and

instructional leaders.

Stay True to Your Beliefs System But Be Smart

The first premise to keep in mind within strategy is that most probably “you can’t fight

city hall”, or in the specific case of turnaround plans, the chances of winning a legal and

systemic battle against state or federal educational agencies are minimum (Walsh & Maniotis,

2014). A wise approach would be to read political signs and trying to understand the big picture

in terms of the educational system, in order to personal survival and the success of others. In that

direction, leadership becomes important and relevant. According to Waters and Marzano (2006),

a leader is an entity with the capacity to influence others in order to establish certain purposes. A

leader can be positive or negative, but in absolute terms, leaders will be measured by their

results. It takes approximately eight years for a person to become a successful manager (Smith,

2008). Education cannot be underestimated in leadership roles. In parallel, it is critical to

interact with staff members, students, and the community. It is important to conduct informal

visits around campuses and departments to establish relationships and hear concerns and

potential solutions. In the end, it is about collecting data and making decisions accordingly.

Solid and Consistent Human Resources Practices

Get everything in writing. There is a direct correlation between effective and purposeful

documentation and the level of efficacy of a Human Resources (HR) department

(Griggs, Holden, Rae, & Lawless, 2015; Scott, 2016; White, 2016). Even when this may be a

41

time consuming task within a daily routine, it is imperative to collect evidence through

documentation in order to positively affect an organization.

Analyze Human Capital

High morale is connected to good performance (Carman, 2013; Carnevale, 2003; Gross,

2004; Hall & Hord, 2011; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Waters et al., 2003). In the end, it is critical

to understand that people work for people, not for money. In other words, happiness and

fulfillment is a necessary tool for organizations to succeed. Considering the necessities of the

new generations, the millennial generation, companies such as Yahoo and Google have explored

new ways to motivate their employees. This extends to our students. Establishing solid and

efficient professional learning communities is essential to increasing morale while keeping the

focus on student performance. In parallel, measuring morale and the specific trends of an

organization can be accomplished through surveys, among other ways to collect data. In order to

keep high morale throughout the schools it is essential to focus on internal and external customer

service, as well as having an open-door policy with every member of the educational community.

Prepare a plan for employee leave of absences. If a charter school or a district is

facing annexation, developing a specific plan to handle the employee leaves absence must be one

of the main priorities (Walsh & Maniotis, 2014). The receiving school may have its own internal

method to start interviewing and hiring individuals. While this happens, employees from the

closing school will start panicking and focusing most of their time on trying to find jobs. These

employees will begin utilizing their leave days to interview, apply for jobs, or simply to deal

with their stress. The usual number of substitutes in the school will not be enough to cover the

demand, and sooner than later the schools will begin suffer. This situation will create additional

discipline problems and ultimately affect academic performance.

42

It is critical to create a strategic plan immediately after realizing that the annexation

process is imminent. Both schools’ top management need to understand what the closing school

employees and students are going through and implement a plan according to that reality. The

uncertainty of not having a job will make the employees more anxious, and the students will

sense that, which in the end will translate in poor academic performance. Walsh and Maniotis

(2014) elaborate on additional aspects to consider if a charter district or a school is facing

closure: employee health insurance and other benefits; employee’s final pay-off; and termination

of employee contracts.

Become an Expert on School Finance and Curriculum

There is a strong correlation between the capacity of an educational leader in terms of

finance and curriculum and the consequential effectiveness of that leader (Baker, 2012; Baker,

Sciarra, & Farrie, 2014; Betts, 2001; Carman, 2013; Goe, 2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006;

Waters et al., 2003; Webb, 2008). When developing charter district or campus turnaround plans,

it seems imperative to increase capacity on curriculum and finance in terms of state and federal

guidelines, in order to effectively address the organization’s needs.

Keep academic performance as your main priority. This premise should be relatively

easy to sustain in the educational world. When contrasting it with the corporate world or another

sector with nonprofit organizations, this dynamic becomes more difficult to follow because the

employees need to constantly remember the company’s goals and mission in order to align their

procedures. In education, everything should be connected to academic performance in one way

or another (Baker, 2012). Schools tend to apply this concept through their strategic plans, where

they have specific measurable goals within their departments. The reality is that even the

operational side of a school should be focused on academic achievement. Keeping this in mind at

43

every level of the organization allows one to sustain a sense of focus and direction within the

decision-making process.

The common question that should arise along the way and every time that a new

program, initiative, or policy is put in place is the following: How is this particular move helping

the academic performance of our students? (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2011). Every

campus and department in a district should be constantly questioning this concept. Students

should come first all the time. Every department, every staff member, and every professional

learning community has to be oriented towards student performance and must be held

accountable under that premise. That is why a school exists as an organization. The input from

every stakeholder has to be measured based on academic performance, graduation rates, and

college readiness. If a particular initiative cannot be measured in those terms, ultimately there

must be something wrong with it.

Understand the state and federal accountability system. It is essential to keep the

state and federal accountability systems in mind at all times when implementing instructional

strategies (Leithwood et al., 2004). It is critical to be familiar with the factors affecting the

outcomes of the accountability outcomes and accreditation. A clear example is graduation rates

and the impact that 4- or 5-year cohorts have on the accountability system. It is critical to track

those students dropping out of high school and also making sure that the reporting system

accurately reflects the status of those students.

Another critical example is ensuring that every principal and instructional leader is fully

aware of those students who impact the academic accountability system the most. Those students

should be clearly identified, and specific instructional plans should be put in place to reach the

desirable academic goals. For example, if a Hispanic student has been identified as at-risk,

44

English Language Learner, and special education, in most accountability systems across the US

that child will impact several areas within the reporting structure. It is highly important that

every instructional leader, including teachers, become aware of every aspect of the accountability

system. It is almost impossible to win a game if the rules of the game are unknown. This is a

reality that is fully aligned with good teaching strategies, and the process has been implemented

many times: Analyze data, assess needs, develop an improvement plan, and implement and

monitor the plan.

Curriculum delivery and planning process. In regards to instruction and the delivery

of curriculum, every school should go through a collaborative planning discussion process at

every grade level and department (Miller, & Maellaro, 2016). Every level of a school should

look at the data, analyze it, find trends, and promote analytical writing for every student, while

constantly checking the campus academic goals. Every grade level and department should plan

the lessons together by analyzing the state and federal curricula each week. Every teacher should

have a journal to record the particularities of the lessons and contribute with the planning when

meeting with the group. At the end of the day, every planning level contributes to the campus

improvement plan. The cycle is simple: Review data from prior week, identify new curricula,

analyze the curricula, identify weekly outcomes, determine common questions, and plan the

lesson.

Building capacity in-house. When analyzing human capital and the direct connection to

academic performance, it is critical to determine the options available to you in a charter district

or a campus (Griggs et al., 2015). Most of the time, it will be highly unlikely that the top

management will be able to fire every ineffective teacher and administrator. The most logical

option should be developing and implementing a plan to build capacity. That plan had to be

45

customized to meet the needs of the school and had to be practical and applicable (Griggs et al.,

2015). These initiatives differ from induction and mentoring programs because it is not only for

new personnel. The common denominator within these programs is providing practical and

applicable tools that can be implemented into the classroom and work setting (Griggs et al.,

2015)

Understand and implement a budgetary process. Having a clear, transparent,

applicable, and effective budgetary process in a charter district or a campus it may become

essential to create an effective turnaround plan (Roza, 2009). Some school leaders without

formal knowledge about finance tend to see the budgetary process as a strange and unnecessary

entity for their success (Roza, 2009). This may be a costly mistake. A school leader should know

enough about school finance to ask important questions about account reconciliations, cash flow,

fund balance, and the entire way that the school district finances are evaluated. The finances of a

district and a campus are an essential component of the sustainability of the community. There is

a direct correlation between invested funds and academic performance (Roza, 2009).

It is key for a school district to be financially solid in order to invest in effective and

innovative educational programs, establish good salaries for teachers, keep updated and efficient

facilities, comply with state regulations, and ultimately influence student achievement. In

parallel, it is a priority for a district to reconcile their accounts and payable bills in order to

sustain its finances. This reality may mean reducing expenditures without sacrificing investments

in the classrooms. At the same time, district personnel signify approximately 85% of the district

budget, and having strategic staffing guidelines is essential for the finance of a district.

Ultimately, not knowing enough about school finance can significantly affect a school leader’s

ability to perform successfully (Roza, 2009).

46

Know that money does matter. School funding influences academic performance

(Baker, 2012). This is supported by the education production function theory, where educational

inputs, such as funding invested influence final outputs, such as high school graduation, on

students’ lives. This is also consistent with research conducted by Sanford and Hunter (2011)

and Houck and Kurtz (2010), who found that funding levels may influence educational results.

Being even more precise and direct, this conclusion corroborates findings from Baker (2012),

where it is clear that schools with more money have a bigger capacity to offer better educational

prospects to their students. These premises indicates that school leaders should be able to know

where to effectively invest school funds in order to positively influence academic performance

and create successful turnaround plans.

Be Ready To Build Your Stamina

It is difficult to understand this premise in the middle of a battle when trying to improve a

struggling charter district or a campus (Senge, 2000). However, school leaders should focus on

tangible and major goals in order to continue moving forward and increasing academic

performance. Within these situations, it is important for top managers to stop blaming

themselves for being in the position they are, focus on what they can control, keep moving

forward, and not giving up regardless of the circumstances (Senge, 2000).

Make sure that you have your ducks in a row. When developing a turnaround plan, it

may be critical for school leaders to keep their egos in check and sustain a clear understanding of

the regulations and guidance ruling the education system (Walsh & Maniotis, 2014). When

facing adverse circumstances within a struggling charter district or a campus, it may be critical

for top managers to improve their performance even more (Alexander, & Wall, 2006). It may be

critical for school leaders to let stakeholders know about daily activities and duties (Hall & Hord,

47

2011). It may be critical for school leaders to gather facts and evidences before judging a

particular way that the state or federal educational agency act in regards to a district or a campus

(Walsh & Maniotis, 2014). Finally, it may critical for school leaders to align what it is said in a

turnaround plan and the reality of a campus or a district (Waters et al., 2003). Failing to do

execute this alignment may not only affect the successful implementation of a turnaround plan,

but it may also hinder the trust that a government agency may have on the organization.

Be Familiar with School Law

When developing a school turnaround plan, or when facing closure and annexation, it is

important to understand that the state or federal educational agency will follow a script and a

specific dynamic (Russo, 2012; Walsh, Kemerer, & Maniotis, 2010). For example, these

institutions tend to repeat similar statements about new hiring, interview processes, contractual

agreements, community involvement, and the general public relationship approach. Within that

dynamic and those variables in mind, it is critical to recognize when the battle is lost in terms of

legal appeals and battles. It takes strong leadership to assume a facilitator role instead of a

protagonist one when necessary (Waters & Marzano, 2006). In the end, it is about looking for the

greater good and what is best for students.

Establish Effective Public Relations Strategies

When analyzing conditions contributing to the need for school public relations (PR), it is

evident that public schools are constantly dealing with a variety of current variables impossible

to manage without a consistent and coherent public relations plan (Baker, 2012; Carman, 2013;

Gross, 2004; Houck & Kurtz, 2010; Kowalski, 2013; LaRocque, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2004;

Lovelock & Wirtz, 2011; Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005; Neuliep, 2015; Smith, 2008; Waters &

Marzano, 2006; Weiland, Murakami, Aguilera & Richards, 2014). Issues such as public

48

dissatisfaction, pluralistic culture, student personal problems, or the fast pace of our society in

regards to information are clearly connected to public relations goals. These goals have to be

aligned and structured towards the primary objective of a charter school: student performance.

According to experts, the educational accountability movement in America has had

several negative and positive impacts on the way schools do business (Carman, 2013). Among

the positive aspects, schools have been forced to elevate their level of responsibility when

reporting data and implementing changes. This assumption is a consequence of school reform,

which has changed the way that public schools do business, as well as compelling schools to

compete for students. This makes PR an essential tool in educational settings at almost every

level. Most of the conditions that schools coexist with are interconnected. The lack of a clear and

systematic PR strategy will produce public dissatisfaction. The best way to minimize this

assumption is by holding organizations accountable and by clearly explaining that the

community has to be constantly informed. In that direction, collecting and providing evaluation

data is essential for the success of the school.

Establish Effective Systems

One of the most important issues when trying to fix a struggling charter schools is the

overwhelming task of finding where to start (Miller & Maellaro, 2016; Preuss, 2003). In order to

do that, it is essential to begin by identifying the problem or the problems. It may be that most of

the issues are merely academic, where the implemented curriculum may not be aligned with

current expectations. It may be that the systems in place are obsolete or scarce, and there are no

follow-up processes in place, and that this reality affects the entire dynamic of the school. It may

be that the current staff, leadership, teaching, and support, are not ideal or are not equipped with

the necessary tools to implement the necessary changes to transform the school. It may be that

49

the entire financial situation of the organization is in disarray and that the school does not have

enough fund balance, good accounting systems, or effective budgeting processes considering

projected student enrollment. It may be an issue with the image of the school where the public

perception is not aligned with the reality of the organization. In other words, because of the lack

of scientific approach to public relationships, only the negative aspects of the school are

highlighted. Sadly, most of the time it is a combination of all the factors above and they must be

approached simultaneously (Kowalski, 2013).

Create Solutions by having a strategic plan. The conglomerated concept in all this is

strategic planning (Allison & Kaye, 2005; Collins & Hansen, 2011; Covey, 2004; Hendricks,

2006; Mitroff, 2000). The strategic plan with systemic transformational changes should start with

the revision of the school mission and goals. The strategic plan is a more general approach than a

turnaround plan. Generally, within a turnaround plan there are specific short term goals that need

to be accomplished in order for a district or a school to remain open. A strategic plan is a

proactive approach that may help an organization to avoid getting dysfunctional and in need of a

turnaround plan (Allison & Kaye, 2005). This is a process that the school leadership should be

ready to lead. In parallel, making every staff member better should also be a priority and this

reality connects with professional learning communities. This means sharing ideas and

knowledge in order to accomplish the required tasks. When everybody gets on the same page and

the level of understanding raises, then the accountability process comes naturally: focusing on

student performance. The organizational chart and distribution of responsibilities is a key

component in all of this dynamic. Getting to know the strengths and the weaknesses of key

stakeholders is another basic factor for a successful delegation of functions.

50

Establish a culture of trust, accountability, and celebration of small successes.

Establishing a culture of trust, accountability, and celebration of small successes may have a

direct impact on academic performance (Carman, 2013; Coleman & LaRocque, 1988; Hall &

Hord, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2004; Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005; Senge, 2000; Smith, 2008;

Supovitz, 2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Waters et al., 2003). A clear example of this dynamic

could be the relationship between superintendents and board members. This relationship has to

be systematically nurtured by creating an appropriate climate where the board of trustees is

constantly informed and involved. One of the most important duties for superintendents is to

help and allow board members to successfully represent their constituents. In that direction, it is

essential to establish systematic opportunities for the board to be knowledgeable about the

situation and direction of the school beyond the institutional board meetings. A clear example

could be the creation of committees according to critical areas: curriculum, facilities, technology,

or finance; where board members could have the opportunity to receive information and ask

questions about potential items on the board agenda, as well as to interact with critical stake

holders in a more informal setting (Miller & Maellaro, 2016).

Redefine the problem, adjust solutions, and communicate. This cycled approach has

been reviewed and applied in many industries and organizations across the world and throughout

the years (Orman, 2005; Miller & Maellaro, 2016; Preuss, 2003). Leaders should be constantly

analyzing past, current, and future problems, and at the same time avoid being hesitant to adjust

solutions and constantly communicating those to the educational community (Supovitz, 2006).

That communication should be systematic, purposeful, and strategic. Leaders should confront the

fear of telling the truth to the educational community all the time (Hall & Hord, 2011). Even if

initially it is harder, in the end it will bring more good than bad.

51

Understand program evaluation theories. Program evaluations represent a critical and

valuable tool for any organization (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011; Isaac & Michael, 1995; Lombardi,

Seburn, & Conley, 2011; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). In education,

program evaluations assume a protagonist role because almost every initiative is framed into a

program. It is essential to assess how the educational enterprises are working in order to evaluate

potential changes. Sadly, many school leaders lack of knowledge in regards to program

evaluations and as a consequence are not a top priority for their organizations (Fitzpatrick et al.,

2011). It seems as though educators are constantly implementing one initiative after another

without truly measuring the effectiveness of any of them (Yarbrough et al., 2011). It seems like a

constant improvisation and application of programs whose permanency are solely based on the

yearly standardized test scores. This is not only a flagrant waste of time and resources, but also a

total tragedy for the students (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011).

Implementing well-designed and purposeful program evaluation systems goes beyond

setting measurable goals in a strategic plan (Allison & Kaye, 2005). Program evaluations

represent a broad approach with different theories, qualitative and quantitative aspects, data

collection levels, analysis, and conclusions impacting critical decisions related to academic

performance and the overall well-being of students (Yarbrough et al., 2011).

Think Big: Define and Share Major Goals and Visions

Even when this prerogative has been repeated over and over again in several forums,

creating a vision, mission, and goals is the most important initial task that any leader should

assume in any organization (Coleman & LaRocque, 1988; Waters et al., 2003; Leithwood et al.,

2004; Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005; Smith, 2008). Even if the institution is highly functional,

revising the mission, vision, and goals every year is a necessary step towards improving

52

processes and follow-up systems. This is an opportunity to get ambitious but stay realistic at the

same time. It is an appropriate moment to think big and allow every member of the organization

to have an input, even if this approach makes the process messy and complicated. Ultimately, if

the process is developed with organization and structure the educational community will obtain a

particular sense of belonging that will positively affect academic performance (Allison & Kaye,

2005).

Conclusion

Throughout this document, the collected evidence predominantly indicated that charter

school and district turnaround plans should be developed and executed in a systematic approach,

implementing root cause analysis, with specific time frames and measurable goals (Miller &

Maellaro, 2016). The nine strategies provided in this document allow school leaders to approach

the development process of a turnaround plan in a systematic and monitoring method: Building

strong leadership teams; stay true to your beliefs system but be smart; solid and consistent

human resources practices; become an expert on school finance and curriculum; be ready to

build your stamina; be familiar with school law; establish effective public relations strategies;

establish effective systems; and think big: define and share major goals and visions.

Given that charter schools and districts are growing at a fast pace within the U.S.

educational system during the past years by representing five percent of all public elementary

and secondary students in the country (Mills, 2013; NCES, 2015), and considering that during

2014 approximately three percent of all charter schools were closed (National Alliance for Public

Charter Schools, 2015), the discussed nine strategies could serve as a contribution and a practical

tool for charter schools to remain open and operational. In order to increase academic

performance, especially within struggling charter schools and districts, policy makers and

53

government educational agencies may want to consider promoting and monitoring the learning,

development, and implementation of these nine strategies in order to potentially increase the

effectiveness of turnaround plans (Miller & Maellaro, 2016).

The societal and academic impact of struggling charter schools and districts have been

well researched. Turnaround plans when well developed and executed tend to be effective

producing academic performance (Griggs et al., 2015). In parallel, the rhetoric about effective

strategies to approach turnaround plans and their potential positive effect increasing academic

performance has been constantly aroused and visited during the past decades, throughout a vast

amount of literature and studies that expose the role of effective leadership in schools (Waters &

Marzano, 2006). Given that struggling charter schools and districts are growing at a fast pace

within the U.S. educational system during the past years (Mills, 2013), it is imperative to

increase the knowledge and understanding of the relationship between well developed and

implemented turnaround plans and their subsequent impact on academic performance.

References

Abraham, Hicks, E., & Hicks, J. (2006). The law of attraction: The basics of the teachings of

Abraham. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House.

Alexander, K., & Wall, A. (2006). Adequate funding of education programs for at risk children:

An econometric application of research-based cost differentials. Journal of Educational

Finance, 31(3), 297–319.

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2010). High school dropouts in America. Retrieved from

http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/HighSchoolDropouts.pdf

54

Allison, M., & Kaye, J. (2005). Strategic planning for nonprofit organizations (2nd ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Al-Madani, F. M. (2015). Relationship between teachers’ effective communication and students’

academic achievement at the Northern Border University. European Journal of

Educational Research, 4(2), 90–96.

Baker, B. (2012). Revisiting the age-old question: Does money matter in education? Retrieved

from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528632.pdf

Baker, B., Sciarra, D., & Farrie, D. (2014). Is school funding fair? A national report card (3rd

ed.). Retrieved from

http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/National_Report_Card_2016.pdf

Beauvais, F., Chavez, E., Oetting, E., Deffenbacher, J., & Cornell, G. (1996). Drug use, violence,

and victimization among White American, Mexican American, and American Indian

dropouts, students with academic problems, and students in good standing. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 43, 292-299.

Belfield, C., & Levin, H. (2007). The return on investment for improving California's high

school graduation rate. Santa Barbara: CA: University of CA.

Betts, J. (2001). The impact of school resources on women's earnings and educational

attainment: Findings from the national longitudinal survey of young women. Journal of

Labor Economics, 19(3), 35–57.

Bost, L. (2007). Building effective dropout prevention programs: Some practical strategies from

research and practice. Retrieved from http://www.ndpc-

sd.org/documents/NSTTAC/NSTTAC_2008_Forum/BUILDING_EFFECTIVE_DROP

OUT_PREVENTION_PROGRAMS.pdf

55

Carman, J. (2013). Evaluation in an era of accountability: Unexpected opportunities—a reply to

Jill Chouinard. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(2), 261–265.

Carnevale, D. G. (2003). Organizational development in the public sector. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Chabrier, J., Cohodes, S., & Oreopoulos, P. (2016). What can we learn from charter school

lotteries? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 57-84.

Cohodes, S. R. (2016). Teaching to the student: Charter school effectiveness in spite of perverse

incentives. Education Finance and Policy, 11(1), 1-42.

Coleman, P., & LaRocque, L. (1988). Reaching out: Instructional leadership in school districts.

Peabody Journal of Education, 65(4), 60–89.

Collins, J., & Hansen, M. T. (2011). Great by choice. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Covey, S. R. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New

York, NY: Free Press.

Dowdy, E., Dever, B., DiStefano, C., & Chin, J. (2011). Screening for emotional and behavioral

risk among students with limited English proficiency. School Psychology Quarterly,

26(1), 14–26.

Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches

and practical guidelines (4th ed.), Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Fryer, R. G. (2014). Injecting charter school best practices into traditional public schools:

Evidence from field experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1355-

1407.

Gleason, P., & Dynarski, M. (2002). Do we know whom to serve? Issues in using risk factors to

identify dropouts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(1), 25–41.

56

Goe, L. (2006). Evaluating a state-sponsored school improvement program through an improved

school finance lens. Journal of Education Finance, 31(4), 395–419.

Gormley, W. (2008). The effects of Oklahoma's pre-K program on Hispanic children. Social

Science Quarterly, 89(4), 916–936.

Griggs, V., Holden, R., Rae, J., & Lawless, A. (2015). Professional learning in human resource

management: Problematising the teaching of reflective practice. Studies in Continuing

Education, 37(2), 202–217.

Gross, S. J. (2004). Promises kept: Sustaining school and district leadership in a turbulent era.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes.

Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hendricks, C. (2006). Improving schools through action research: A comprehensive guide for

educators. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Houck, E., & Kurtz, A. (2010). Resource distribution and graduation rates in SREB states: An

overview. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(1), 32–48.

In Russo, C. J. (2012). School law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Isaac, S. & Michael, W. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA:

Educational and Industrial Testing Services.

Kowalski, T. J. (2013). Public relations in schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

LaRocque, L. (1998). The changing role of administrators in ethnically diverse schools.

Retrieved from http://mbc.metropolis.net/assets/uploads/files/wp/1999/WP99-11.pdf

57

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences

student learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-

center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf

Lencioni, P. (2002). The 5 dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Lombardi, A., Seburn, M., & Conley, D. (2011). Development and initial validation of a measure

of academic behaviors associated with college and career readiness. Journal of Career

Assessment, 19(4), 375–391.

Lovelock, C., & Wirtz, J. (2011). Services marketing: People, technology, strategy (7th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miller, R. J., & Maellaro, R. (2016). Getting to the root of the problem in experiential learning:

Using problem solving and collective reflection to improve learning outcomes. Journal of

Management Education, 40(2), 170–193.

Mills, J. (2013). The achievement impacts of Arkansas open-enrollment charter schools. Journal

of Education Finance, 38(4), 320-342.

Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2005). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for

NCLB implementation from state and district strategies in first-generation accountability

systems. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED488713.pdf

Mitroff, I. I. (2000). Managing crises before they happen: What every executive and manager

needs to know about crisis management. New York, NY: AMACOM.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2015). Estimated number of public charter

schools & students, 2014–15. Retrieved from http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-

content/uploads/2015/02/open_closed_FINAL.pdf

58

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2015). The condition of education 2015:

Charter school enrollment. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgb.asp

Neuliep, J. W. (2015). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach (6th ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Orman, S. (2005). The money book for the young, fabulous & broke. New York, NY: Riverhead

Books.

Orman, S. (2011). The money class: Learn to create your new American dream. New York, NY:

Spiegel & Grau.

Osborne, J., & Overbay, A. (2004). The power of outliers (and why researchers should always

check for them). Peabody Journal of Education, 85(1), 32-48.

Preuss, P. G. (2003). School leader's guide to root cause analysis: Using data to dissolve

problems. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Roberts, T., Brunner, J., & Bills, S. (2006). ESL programs and LEP students: A comparison of

public and private schools along the Wasatch Front. Multicultural Education, 13(3),

27–32.

Roza, M. (2009). Breaking down school budgets. Education Next, 9(3), 6.

Rumberger, R. (2011). Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and what can be

done about it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sanford, T., & Hunter, J. (2011). Impact of performance-funding on retention and graduation

rates. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ956031.pdf

Scott, E. (2016). Ethics and human resource management. In E. Searing & D. Searing (Eds.),

59

Practicing professional ethics in economics and public policy (pp. 215–221). New York,

NY: Springer.

Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and

everyone who cares about education. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Silas, E., & Goodney, D. (2003). Yoga. New York, NY: Franklin Watts.

Smith, L. (2008). Schools that change: Evidence-based improvement and effective change

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Stewart, L. (2009). Achievement differences between large and small schools in Texas. The

Rural Educator, 30(2), 20–28.

Struhl, B., & Vargas, J. (2012). Taking college courses in high school: A strategy for college

readiness. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537253.pdf

Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston, I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high school dropouts.

Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 196–203.

Supovitz, J. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining

school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Texas Education Agency [TEA]. (2015). 2014 Comprehensive biennial report on Texas public

schools. Austin, TX: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). The condition of education 2014. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014083.pdf

Walsh, J., & Maniotis, L. (2014). Educator's guide to Texas school law (8th ed.). Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press.

60

Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of

superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research

for Education and Learning.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of

research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO:

Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Webb, D. (2008). Leading schools financially: The ABCs of school finance: Indiana

extracurricular guide. Indianapolis, IN: Power Pub.

Weiland, C., Murakami, E., Aguilera, E., & Richards, M. (2014). Advocates in odd places:

Social justice for behaviorally challenged, minority students in a large urban school

district, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 9, 114–127.

White, B. (2016). Laboratories of reform? Human resource management strategies in Illinois

charter schools. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED564421.pdf

Wong, V., Cook, T., Barnett, W., & Jung, K. (2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of five

state pre-kindergarten programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1),

122–154.

Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program

evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

61

Running head: RTI & CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PRACTICE


Krista P. James

Assistant Professor

University of Alaska Anchorage

62

RTI & CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PRACTICE

Abstract

The vision for education in Alaska is that all students will be afforded an education that

meets their academic, social, and cultural needs. This vision is not realized specifically for

culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners, the most underserved population in the

state. Research indicates that Response to Intervention (RTI) could be a solution to this problem.

63



Introduction

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a process identified in the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA). It involves schools providing tiers or layers of documented and

implemented supports (e.g., accommodations, alternative instructional materials, etc.) to

struggling learners before referring them for special education services. IDEA allows schools to

use the RTI process in lieu of other assessment measures in cases of suspected specific learning

disabilities. Research indicates that RTI has been successful in supporting a variety of struggling

learners and many school districts have chosen to implement the process even for students not

suspected of having disabilities. Sadly, there is no comprehensive information on the

implementation of RTI in Alaska. The purpose of this literature review is to determine the

characteristics of a culturally responsive RTI program, in order to determine best practice for

implementation within the state of Alaska.

Literature Review

This literature review focuses on identifying essential components of culturally

responsive models of RTI. For the purpose of the planned research project, the strategies are

divided according to the three tiers of instruction which is common in many RTI methodologies.

“Response to intervention integrates assessment and intervention within a multi-level prevention

system to maximize student achievement and to reduce behavioral problems. With RTI, schools

use data to identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide

evidence-based interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending

on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities or other

disabilities” (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010, p. 1).

64


RTI has a history with beginnings in multiple research areas, including applied behavior

analysis, precision teaching, curriculum-based measurement (CBM), and effective teaching.

Independent research efforts and practical applications demonstrated the potential for universal

screening, frequent progress monitoring, and systematic intervention to accelerate learning and

enhance both the efficiency and accuracy of identification efforts in special education. Over

time, general categories of RTI implementations emerged, such as problem-solving, functional

assessment, standard protocol, and hybrid models. Effects obtained under any RTI model

depend on the quality with which implementation occurs (VanDerHeyden, 2016).

The National Center on Response to Intervention (2010) explains, “There are four

essential components of RTI: A school-wide, multi-level instructional and behavioral system for

preventing school failure, Screening, Progress Monitoring, Data-based decision making for

instruction, movement within the multi-level system, and disability identification (in accordance

with state law)” (p. 1). A variety of different models have been developed, but, in order to be

considered an RTI model, it must contain these essential components.

“In RTI models, instruction is delivered in a multi-tiered (typically three or four tiers)

instructional support system where the intensity of instruction provided matches students’ needs.

In a three-tier model, Tier 1, or primary prevention, is conceptualized as core, evidence based,

and effective instruction for all students. Tier 2, or secondary support, is conceptualized as early

intervening services that meet the needs of students who demonstrate risk of academic failure,

and Tier 3, or tertiary support, is designed to be intensive intervention for students who have the

greatest needs” (Sanford, Brown, & Turner, 2012, p. 59).

Tier 1 Interventions

65


Drame and Xu (2008) describe, "In most RTI models, Tier 1 of the process would

involve assessing the quality of instruction in a general education environment by measuring the

rate of academic growth of all students in comparison to other classes in the school or district"

(p. 28). The definition of quality instruction for students in Alaska is in the implementation of the

Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Educators (Alaska Native Knowledge Network,

1998).

Hernandez Finch (2012) recognizes methods of promise as comprehensive and contextual

instructional formats, such as the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) and

Universal Design for Learning (UDL), along with a cumulative language approach with a variety

of programming and differentiation for reading instruction. It is necessary for teachers and

students to have access to relevant curriculum & materials.

Quality professional development is a significant component of any RTI model, because,

high-quality professional development leads to high-quality instruction, which is what an RTI

model requires. District administration, teachers, and support staff should receive intensive and

ongoing professional development in implementing these cultural standards with a focus on

cultural pedagogy versus teaching culture and examining their views on social justice, race, and

students from disparate backgrounds (Hernandez Finch, 2012).

School culture is another component of Tier 1 in an RTI model. Owens & Valesky

(2015) describe organizational culture as, "a pattern of thinking, reflected and reinforced in

behavior, that is so seldom seen but yet is so powerful in shaping people's behavior. This pattern

of thinking and the behavior associated with it provide stability, foster certainty, solidify order

and predictability, and create meaning in the organization" (p. 185). The staff must have shared

responsibility for all students in order to create a positive school culture for all students. Schools

66


often divide students according to the services they receive and are claimed by that teacher or

department. This is a very western approach that divides and categorizes people into

departments. A school culture that would be culturally responsive to its students would be one

"in which educators' belief that all students can learn is accompanied by an acceptance of

responsibility for creating learning environments that promote equity and academic success for

each and every learner. This requires administrative support and resources” (Garcia & Ortiz,

2008, p. 28). Systems for addressing student behavior are another component of school

culture. "A culturally responsive behavior support program would include disaggregating data to

determine whether interventions were beneficial for all school populations and would include

contextual features embedded into the policies and daily practices of the school” (Hernandez

Finch, 2012, p. 290). School culture extends beyond the physical space of the school, its staff,

students, and administration and into the home and community of which it belongs. Pewewardy

and Fitzpatrick (2009) explain, "Educators who incorporate culturally responsive teaching

practices and communication strategies have been shown to improve the home-school

relationship. Also, by planning carefully, demonstrating sensitivity to cultural differences, and

incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices, educators can increase their effectiveness

when working with American Indian families" (p. 95).


If CLD students are not responding to Tier 1 instruction, and the team has determined

that the instruction is high quality and implemented in a culturally responsive manner, utilizing

the strategies described above, then it is time to look into moving them to the Tier 2 level of

intervention. Before moving the student into Tier 2, the team must look at "the proportion of

CLD students in tiers with more intensive levels of intervention needs…as well as whether

67


students from CLD backgrounds are more likely to be segregated to receive more intensive

supports” (Cramer, 2015, p. 5). One way of doing this is to look at the assessments and

assessment practices being used. Garcia & Ortiz (2008) recommend using curriculum based

assessments across settings, subjects, and skill domains to supplement standardized assessments.

Hernandez Finch (2012) recommends using dual discrepant criteria to judge non-responsiveness

so that students would be required to fall below expectations and additionally not show growth

on more that one intervention in order to be considered non-responsive and incorporating local

norms into benchmarks. If the assessment practices are reviewed and deemed to be valid for the

CLD students, then Tier 2 interventions should be employed.

Tier 2 interventions in any RTI model are geared more towards the learning needs of the

specific student referred, but there are adaptations that can be made to the program to help ensure

that it is being implemented in a culturally responsive manner. A clinical teaching and

diagnostic-prescriptive process are recommended by Garcia & Ortiz (2008) to ensure that

instruction given at the Tier 1 level is mastered, but the most significant adaptations to the Tier 2

level of interventions come in the form of collaboration. Recommendations are to utilize the

Funds of Knowledge to truly understand the student's background, family system, and culture,

and in setting up a multifaceted problem-solving focus (Garcia & Ortiz, 2008) to be

accomplished by the team made up of the student's teachers, specialists, and family. School

administrators will also need to address team planning time and school-wide professional

development.


Teams should be highly cautious in moving CLD students into a Tier 3 level of services,

especially if a special education referral is part of the Tier 3 protocol. According to Hernandez

68


Finch (2012), "Achievement, completion of school, and participation in post-high school

opportunities continue to be a challenge for students who are given a special education label in

the school setting…Some of the most basic issues that need to be addressed when developing a

culturally responsive Tier 3 include ensuring that exit criteria exist, disaggregating outcomes for

all learners, carefully balancing all of the pullouts, and ensuring that students are getting

sufficient exposure to the content required to graduate” (p. 290). A student-centered, problem-

solving team that includes the family, the student, and representatives from any community

agency in which the student is receiving services, should guide the process.

Interventions provided for the student at this level should be the result of targeted

professional development for the team providing the intervention, and fidelity measures should

be assessed to ensure valid programming (Garcia & Ortiz, 2008 and Hernandez-Finch, 2012). If

the team is considering a special education referral, the team needs to have proper documentation

and evidence to meet the intent of IDEA where educators must show that learning problems

experienced by CLD students are not primarily the result of environmental, cultural, or economic

disadvantage (Garcia & Ortiz, 2008).

Conclusion

The vision for education in Alaska is that all students will be afforded an education that

will meet their academic, social, emotional, and cultural needs. This vision is not realized

specifically for the culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners who are the most

underserved population in the state. Research indicates that Response to Intervention (RTI),

when implemented with fidelity, could be a solution to this problem. Bruce (2012) states, “RTI

is a tiered process of instruction that allows schools to identify struggling students early and

provide appropriate instructional interventions. Early intervention means more chances for

69


success and less need for special education services. RTI would also address the needs of

children who previously did not qualify for special education." In the future, research should be

conducted to determine to what degree RTI (Figure 1) is being implemented within Alaska

school districts, specifically focusing on the characteristics of culturally responsive practice that

are identified in this literature review.

Figure 1. Culturally Responsive RTI Pyramid

70


References

Alaska Native Knowledge Network. (1998). Alaska Standards for Culturally-Responsive

Schools. Retrieved from

http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/Publications/culturalstandards.pdfhttp://www.ankn.uaf.edu/P

ublications/culturalstandards.pdf

Bruce, S. (2012). A Parent's Guide to Response to Intervention (RTI). Retrieved from

http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/rti.parent.guide.htm

Cramer, L. (2015). Inequities of intervention among culturally and linguistically diverse

students. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 12(1) Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1056724&site=eho

st-live

Drame, E. R., & Xu, Y. (2008). Examining sociocultural factors in response to intervention

models. Childhood Education, 85(1), 26. Retrieved from http://www.acei.org

Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2008). A framework for culturally and linguistically responsive

design of response-to-intervention models. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse

Exceptional Learners, 11(1), 24-41. Retrieved from http://mv.ddel.metapress.com/

content/gu04327p723217t0/?p=a77d3be4ff3940ee979d3dfce9da3b9e&pi=2

Hernandez Finch, M. E. (2012). Special considerations with response to intervention and

instruction for students with diverse backgrounds. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 285-

296. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.21597

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential Components of RTI - A closer

look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office

of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.

72

http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/Publications/culturalstandards.pdf



http://search.ebscohost.com/

http://mv.ddel.metapress.com/content/




Owens, R.G., & Valesky, T.C. (2015). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and

school reform, (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson .

Pewewardy, C. and Fitzpatrick, M. (2009). Working with American Indian Students and

Families: Disabilities, issues, and interventions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(2),

91-98.

Sanford, A.K., Brown, J.E., and Turner, M. (2012). Enhancing Instruction for English Learners

in Response to Intervention Systems: The PLUSS Model. Multiple Voices for Ethnically

Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(1), 56-70.

VanDerHeyden, A. (2016). Approaches to RTI. Retrieved from

http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/approaches-to-rti

73