Policy Brief 4 - School Improvement and Turnaround

talking points and key messages that a District Leadership Team or Community School Leadership
Team (DLT/CSLT) and Building Leadership Teams (BLTs) can use to facilitate the process. It contains
scant research because this information can be found in the Ohio Leadership Development Framework
Modules (www.ohioleadership.org). Further online training on each stage (Stages 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4)
can be found at this same website.

OHIO’S IMPROVEMENT PROCESS

S

chool districts that have persistently failing schools are required to embark upon the Ohio
Improvement Process (OIP), which contains four stages as identified in Figure 1.

Created
by the Ohio
Department of Education in 2012,
the OIP seeks to ensure that all Ohio
The
Ohio
Improvement
Process
schools are high performing. All Priority Schools are required to implement the OIP.
To see the full-size visual, click here.
Figure 1 – Ohio Improvement Process

STAGE 0

Prepare for the OIP.

the necessary collaborative structures, it describes the practices of communication and engagement, decision making, and resource management that are threaded throughout the OIP.

STAGE 2
Develop a Focused Plan.

How

do these teams
work in districts
and schools?

How

do these teams
work in districts
and schools?

Develop goal(s),
strategies, indicators, and
action steps focused on
Stage 1 critical needs.

Use data to identify
critical needs.

• District and Community School
Leadership Team (DLT/CSLT)
• Building Leadership Teams (BLTs)

How

do these teams

work in districts
and schools?

• Teacher-Based Teams (TBTs)

How

STEP 1

Collect and
chart data.

Review data.
Gather evidence of
implementation and
impact.

STEP 5

Collect, chart,
and analyze
post data.

STEP 4

Implement
changes
consistently.

TheOHIO

Ohio
5-Step
5-STEP
Process

STEP 2

do these teams
work in districts
and schools?

Implement strategies
and action steps to
achieve district goals.

Analyze data.

PROCESS
STEP 3
Establish shared
expectations for
implementing

implementation and
effect on changes in
adult practice and
student learning.

Policy Brief
Improvement

andand
Turnaround
Policy
Brief#4:
#4:School
School
Improvement
Turnaround

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
MOVING
FORWARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
MOVING
FORWARD

W

ith
than
370,000
of Ohio’s
students students
affected by affected
inadequateby
learning
environments,
timeenvironments,
is of the

ithmore
more
than
370,000
of Ohio’s
inadequate
learning

time is of the

essence.
Ohio
mustmust
continue
to advance
school improvement
efforts and capitalize
on flexibility
ushered in
ESSA. To that
end,
essence.
Ohio
continue
to advance
school improvement
efforts
and capitalize
onbyflexibility
ushered

Philanthropy
Ohio
urges
Ohio’s
leaders and stakeholders
by
ESSA. To
that
end,
Philanthropy
Ohio urgesto:Ohio’s leaders and stakeholders to:

in

1. Build
Build a a
pipeline
of effective
teachersteachers
and leaders
who
are ready
to step
the state’s
lowest
schools
and performing
turn them around,
1.

pipeline
of effective
and
leaders
who
areinto
ready
to step
intoperforming
the state’s
lowest
whether
traditionally
prepared
or
alternatively
trained.
Great
teachers
and
strong
leaders
matter.
The
state
must
examine
the effectiveness
schools and turn them around, whether traditionally prepared or alternatively trained. Great teachers
and

and
retention
rates
of
educator
preparation
programs
and
alternative
programs
operating
in
the
state,
including
Woodrow
Wilson, Teach
strong leaders matter. The state must examine the effectiveness and retention rates of educator preparation
for America and
Ohio, and,
if worthy,
continue toin
support
and expand
such initiatives.
programs
andBRIGHT
alternative
programs
operating

the state,
including
Woodrow Wilson, Teach for America and
Ohio,
and,
if worthy, continue
to support
expand such
2. BRIGHT
Push hard to
identify
“evidence-based”
turnaround
strategies and
and implement
those initiatives.
approaches at even greater scale. This means leveraging the
expertise
of key education
partners, including
Battelle for strategies
Kids,
2. Push
hard
to identify
“evidence-based”
turnaround
and implement those approaches at even
various
Education

Service
Centers,
colleges
of
education
and
others
whoeducation
have expertise
in implementing
greater scale. This means leveraging the expertise of key
partners,
including Battelle for Kids,
transformative
teaching,
leading,
instructional,
curricular
and
support
strategies.
various Education Service Centers, colleges of education and others who have expertise in implementing
teaching,innovation
leading, instructional,
curricular
support
3. transformative
Create a school improvement
fund, including Title
I dollars,and

whereby
schoolsstrategies.
receive grants and funding based on top-flight

educational
criteria, improvement
which is rooted in innovation
and informed by
the state’s
SIG evaluation
report currently
underway
at the
Ohio Department
3. Create
a school
fund,
including
Title I dollars,
whereby
schools
receive
grants and
of
Education.
The
development
of
this
fund

should
build
on
lessons
learned
from
Ohio
and
across
the
country,
including
the evaluation
significant
funding based on top-flight educational criteria, which is rooted in and informed by the state’s SIG
investments
of
Ohio’s
Straight
A
Fund.
report currently underway at the Ohio Department of Education. The development of this fund should build
lessons
learned from
Ohio and
across thebest
country,
including
the
significant

investments
of Ohio’s Straight A
4. on
Prioritize
interventions
and identify
and disseminate
practices
to that end.
The
Ohio Department
of
Fund.
Education must become a partner in helping local leaders, faculty and staff understand and consider options that demonstrate success
and support interventions
local turnaround efforts.
We know and
that one
size does not best
fit all. practices
We also know
schools
guidance
4. Prioritize
and identify
disseminate
to that
thatlocal
end.
The need

Ohioadditional
Department
of and
support
to
undertake
this
work
on
behalf
of
students.
Education must become a partner in helping local leaders, faculty and staff understand and consider options
demonstrate
success
and support local
turnaround
efforts.toWe
know
that by
one
not fitofall.
We also
5. that
Examine
and retool the
use of “transformation
specialists”
who are assigned
Priority

Schools
thesize
Ohiodoes
Department
Education.
know
that
local
schools
need
additional
guidance
and
support
to
undertake
this
work
on
behalf
of
students.
Often ODE is too focused on compliance and not enough on supporting and connecting schools to resources aimed at facilitating dramatic turnaround
for retool
our students.
Transformation
specialists should
be supported
andare
prepared

to fully
ESSA-related
evi5. Examine
and
the use
of “transformation
specialists”
who
assigned
to understand
Priority Schools
by the
dence-based
strategies of
andEducation.
equipped to help
principals
and
teachers
in Priority
Schools implement
those
strategies.
Ohio
Department
Often
ODE is
too
focused
on compliance

and not
enough
on supporting and
resources
aimed
facilitating
dramatic
for our students.
6. connecting
Report on the schools
impact ofto
Ohio’s
previous
school at
improvement
processes
andturnaround
Straight A investments.
The results Transformation
of these evaluations
specialists
should
be
supported
and
prepared
to
fully
understand
ESSA-related

evidence-based
strategies
should be used to drive state and local direction for leveraging ESSA flexibilities and maximizing its approach to deploying
funds. and
equipped to help principals and teachers in Priority Schools implement those strategies.
These steps will help put Ohio on a new path for turning around the state’s failing schools and ensuring

6.
Report on
themore
impact
of Ohio’s
school
improvement
processes and Straight A investments. The
opportunity
for the
than 370,000
Ohio previous
students enrolled
in those
schools.
results of these evaluations should be used to drive state and local direction for leveraging ESSA flexibilities
and maximizing its approach to deploying funds.
These steps will help put Ohio on a new path for turning around the state’s failing schools and ensuring
opportunity for the more than 370,000 Ohio students enrolled in those schools.

ENDNOTES
ENDNOTES
________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

MUCH
MONEY
HAS
BEENSPENT
SPENT ON
IMPROVEMENT
EFFORTS?
HOWHOW
MUCH
MONEY
HAS
BEEN
ONSCHOOL
SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT
EFFORTS?

F

ederal
that have
dedicated
to Ohio’s
ederalinvestments
investments
thatbeen
have
been dedicated

School
Improvement
(SIG) over Grants
the last eight
to Ohio’s
School Grants
Improvement
(SIG)

years total
as shown
in the
following
table.
over
the $266
last million,
eight years
total
$266
million,
as
shown
in tothe
table. the state received
In addition
SIGfollowing
and ARRA funding,

$558

million into
federal
funds infunding,
2015. It is expected
to
In
addition
SIG Title
andIARRA
the state
receive an estimated
$575 million
in 2016.
In spite
of these
received
$558 million
in federal
Title
I funds
major
investments,
it
is
unclear
if
Ohio’s
school
improvein 2015. It is expected to receive an estimated
ment approach

been successful.
As these
of August
2016,
$575
million has
in 2016.
In spite of
major
the
Ohio
Department
of
Education
has
not
finalized
investments, it is unclear if Ohio’s school and
released its evaluation
of SIG.has been successful.
improvement
approach
As of August 2016, the Ohio Department of
Education has not finalized and released its
evaluation of SIG.

Note:
Note: This
This brief
brief defines
defines “failing
“failing schools”
schools” as
as schools
schools whose
whose local
local report
report cards
cards consist
consist of
of Fs
Fs and
and Ds
Ds without
without any
any As
As and
and Bs.
Bs.
3
3 FSG Social Impact Advisors, The School Turnaround Field Guide (2010), accessed August 15, 2016,
FSG Social Impact Advisors, The School Turnaround Field Guide (2010), accessed August 15, 2016, />knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Turnaround-Field-Guide.pdf.
knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Turnaround-Field-Guide.pdf.

YearInvestment
Year

Investment
2009
2009

2010
2010
2011
2011
2012
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2015
2016
2016



regular
$132M (includes $20M in regular
SIG
SIG funds and $112M in ARRA)
$20M
$21M
$20M
$20M
$19M

$18M
$16M

Mark Edmundson,
Edmundson, Why
Why read?
read? (New
(New York:
York: Bloomsbury,
Bloomsbury, 2004);
2004); E.D.
E.D. Hirsch,
Hirsch, The
The Making
Making of
of Americans
Americans (New
(New Haven:
Haven: Yale
Yale University
University Press,
Press, 2009).
2009).
Mark
Ohio
Department of
of Education,
Education, “Ohio
“Ohio School
School Report

Report Cards,”
Cards,” accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, /> />Ohio Department
default.aspx
default.aspx
1
1

2
2











Mike
Schmoker, Leading
Leading with
with Focus;
Focus; Elevating
Elevating the

the Essentials
Essentials for
for School
School and
and District
District Improvement
Improvement (2016).
(2016).
Mike Schmoker,
Kate
Taylor, “After
“After 2
2 Years,
Years, Progress
Progress Is
Is Hard
Hard to
to See
See in
in Some
Some Struggling
Struggling City
City Schools,”
Schools,” New
New York
York Times,
Times, July
July 19,
19, 2016,
2016, accessed

accessed August
August 15,
15,
Kate Taylor,
2016,
2016, /> />4
4
5
5

6
6 Ohio Department of Education, “Priority Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, o. gov/Topics/School-Improvement/
Ohio Department of Education, “Priority Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, o. gov/Topics/School-Improvement/
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Priority-Schools.
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Priority-Schools.
7
7 Ohio Department of Education, “Focus Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Ohio Department of Education, “Focus Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Focus-Schools.
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Focus-Schools.
8
8 Ohio Department of Education, “Watch Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Ohio Department of Education, “Watch Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Watch-Schools.
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Watch-Schools.
9
9 Cleveland’s Plan for Transforming Schools, accessed August 15, 2016, />Cleveland’s Plan for Transforming Schools, accessed August 15, 2016, />Centricity/Domain/98/ClevelandPlanandLegislation.pdf.
Centricity/Domain/98/ClevelandPlanandLegislation.pdf.

Cincinnati Public
Public Schools,
Schools, “Elementary
“Elementary Initiative,”
Initiative,” accessed

accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, /> />Cincinnati
elementary-initiative.
elementary-initiative.
11
11 Sara Mead, Turning Around Low-Performing Schools (2012), accessed August 15, 2016, />Sara Mead, Turning Around Low-Performing Schools (2012), accessed August 15, 2016, />standleadershipcenter.org/files/media/Turn%20Arounds.pdf.
standleadershipcenter.org/files/media/Turn%20Arounds.pdf.
10
10

500 SouthStreet,
Front Street, Suite900
900
500 South
37 WestFront
Broad Street,Suite
Suite 800
Columbus,
43215-7628
Columbus,
OhioOhio
43215-4198
Columbus,
Ohio
43215-7628

ã 614.224.1344

614.224.1344

ã ã614.224.1344

www.philanthropyohio.org
www.philanthropyohio.org

www.philanthropyohio.org

Philanthropy
Ohio
2016
Philanthropy
Ohio
â â2016

Breakthrough Schools,
Schools, Annual
Annual Reports,
Reports, accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, /> />Breakthrough
Danette Parsley
Parsley &
& Rhonda
Rhonda Barton,
Barton, “School
“School Turnaround

Turnaround in
in the
the Rural
Rural Context,”
Context,” accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, />
Danette
northwest-matters/school-turnaround-rural-context.
northwest-matters/school-turnaround-rural-context.

12
12
13
13

Lauren Camera,
Camera, “Rural
“Rural School
School Collaboratives:
Collaboratives: Key
Key to
to Success?”
Success?” U.S.
U.S. News
News &
& World
World Report,

Report, accessed
accessed August
August 16,
16, 2016,
2016,
Lauren
/> />
14
14

THE URGENCY
TURNING
AROUND
LOW-PERFORMING
SCHOOLS:
THE
URGENCYOFOF
TURNING
AROUND
LOW-PERFORMING
EVERY CHILD
DESERVES
A GREAT
EDUCATION
SCHOOLS:
EVERY
CHILD
DESERVES
A GREAT EDUCATION

P

hilanthropy
Ohio
stands
resolute
that eachthat
and every
hilanthropy
Ohio
stands
resolute
eachOhio
andstudent,
every
no
matter
his/her zip
deserves
Ohio
student,
no code,
matter
his/her

zip code, deserves
access toto
a high-performing
school that
is equipped

the best with
teachers,
access
a high-performing
school
that iswith
equipped
leaders,
instructional
strategies,
the best teachers, leaders, instructional strategies,
community engagement
effortsefforts
and wraparound
supports thatsupports
result
community
engagement
and wraparound
in
student
success.
The
research
is
decisive:
a
well-rounded
education
that result in student success. The research is decisive: a

has life-altering effects
on everyhas
aspect
of society, particularly
poor.
well-rounded
education
life-altering
effects ontheevery
New
evidence
from
the
Brookings
Institute
affirms
the
effects
of
a
aspect of society, particularly the poor. New evidencequality
education
individual incomes,
earnings,
social mobility,
health
from
theon
Brookings
Institutelifetime

affirms
the effects
of a quality
1
and
life
expectancy.
education on individual incomes, lifetime earnings, social
1
mobility,
health
and life
expectancy.
Despite all of
the evidence
pointing
to the importance of a high-quality
education,all
Ohio
to be challenged
high importance
number of schools
Despite
ofcontinues
the evidence
pointingbytoa the
of
that
fall
short

of
meeting
the
education
needs
of
their
students.
Of the
a high-quality education, Ohio continues to be challenged
state’s
more number
than 3,400 of
schools,
about
820 fall
(25 percent)
struggle
with the
by
a high
schools
that
short of
meeting
2
low
performance.
More
than

370,000
students
are
currently
enrolled
in
education needs of their students. Of the state’s more than
those
schools.
Most
serve
students
in
urban,
high-poverty
communities.
3,400 schools, about 820 (25 percent) struggle with low
2 category of schools is emerging across Ohio’s cities
Another troubling
More than 370,000 students are currently
performance.
and
suburbs:
those
that
receive passing
grades students
on their local
cards,
enrolled in those

schools.
Most serve
inreport
urban,
but,
upon
closer
examination,
face
continued
achievement
gaps
among
high-poverty communities. Another troubling category of
student subgroups.
And, across
high-poverty,
rural
school
districts,
whichthose
dot
schools
is emerging
Ohio’s
cities
and
suburbs:
the
state’s

landscape
and
serve
more
than
170,000
students,
face
their
own
that receive passing grades on their local report cards, but,
unique
sets
of
challenges.
Philanthropy
Ohio
believes
it
is
unacceptable
to
upon closer examination, face continued achievement gaps
deny
any
student,
whether
in
an
urban,

suburban
or
rural
school
setting,
among student subgroups. And, high-poverty, rural school
access to a high-quality
Doing
so strips students
of themore
keys
districts,
which doteducation.
the state’s
landscape
and serve
they
need
to
unlock
their
future
economic
opportunities
that
are
all
but
than 170,000 students, face their own unique sets of chalguaranteed
with

the
right
education
opportunities.
lenges. Philanthropy Ohio believes it is unacceptable to
deny any student, whether in an urban, suburban or rural
school setting, access to a high-quality education. Doing so
strips students of the keys they need to unlock their future
economic opportunities that are all but guaranteed with
the right education opportunities.

Ohio’s education
leaders
have been
attempting,
with little success,
turn
Ohio’s
education
leaders
have
been attempting,
with to
little
around
the
state’s
lowest
performing
schools

for
nearly
14
years,
since
success, to turn around the state’s lowest performing the
passage offor
the nearly
No Child14
Left
Behind
Act (NCLB)
in 2002. of
Yet,the
more
than a
schools
years,
since
the passage
No
decade
later,
370,000
students
still
remain
trapped
in
inadequate

learning
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002. Yet, more than
It is370,000
time for education
to stop, take
stock, pool
aenvironments.
decade later,
studentsleaders
still remain
trapped
in
resources
and
supports
and
determine
a
more
effective
path
inadequate learning environments. It is time for forward.
education
leaders
to stop,
take success
stock, has
pool
resources
supports

While school
turnaround
been
somewhatand
fleeting
over the last
and
determine
more
effective
path forward.
decade,
we have at aleast
learned
some important
lessons, which, based

upon theschool
evidence,
must anchor success
our path forward:
While
turnaround
has been somewhat
fleeting
the last
decade,
we have at
least
learned

some
• School over
leadership
and teacher
effectiveness
stand
as the
most critical
important
which,
upon
the evidence,
factors for lessons,
school success.
Thisbased
is why we
dedicated
Brief #1 to must
the
anchor
ourcannot
path turn
forward:
topic. You
around a school without a top-flight leader and

effective teachers.
• School
leadership and teacher effectiveness stand as the
factors for school

success.
This
why we
• most
Schoolcritical
boards, superintendents
and union
leaders
areis
integral
to
dedicated
Briefturnaround
#1 to theefforts.
topic.These
Youleaders
cannot
turn
around
a
successful school
must
have
an
school
without
a top-flight
leader aand
aligned vision
and jointly

agree to support
plan effective
for turning teachers.
around a
3
school building.
• School
boards,
superintendents and union leaders are
integral
to
successful
school
turnaround
efforts. These
• High quality curriculum and
instruction
are also key
leaders
must
have
an
aligned
vision
and
jointly
to
ingredients, and these are dependent upon effective schoolagree
leadership
3

4 turning around a school building.
and
support
a
plan
for
and rigorous expectations.

•
quality curriculum
and instruction
are also key
• High
A sense-of-urgency
must be balanced
with perseverance
ingredients,
and
these
are
dependent
upon
and an eye toward the long game. There is no evidenceeffective
of a school
4
school
leadership
expectations.
improvement
initiativeand

in therigorous
country that
has demonstrated long-term

success
and showed
•A
sense-of-urgency
must be balanced with perseverance
5
improvement
twothe
or three
Lasting
and
an eye within
toward
longyears.
game.
Thereschool
is noimprovement
evidence
takes
time, resources,
leadership,initiative in the country that
of
a school
improvement
community
support and

buy-in.
has
demonstrated
long-term
success and showed
school
improvement
within
two
or
three
years.5 Lasting
• School governance, operations and fiscal management
all play
into the
improvement
takes
time,
resources,
leadership,
success of turning around a lowcommunity
support
andbe
buy-in.
performing school
and cannot
ignored.

• School governance, operations and fiscal management
all play into the success of turning around a lowperforming school and cannot be ignored.

OHIO’S CURRENT SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT APPROACH

U

nder the NCLB requirements, schools that failed to make Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP), a measure of student achievement for
multiple years, faced a series of escalating interventions. After passage
of NCLB, the federal government implemented Race to the Top and
School Improvement Grants (SIG), calling for states to identify the
lowest performing 5 percent of schools as “persistently lowest
achieving,” and use SIG funds to implement one of four “reform models”
in these schools: turnaround, transformation, restart and closure.
Ohio’s school improvement policies were built around those four
reform models plus one additional model: intervention and
improvement. Today, Ohio identifies Priority, Focus and Watch schools.
The state’s 129 Priority Schools must select and implement one of
five school turnaround intervention models as a part of its mandatory
school improvement plan: 6
•Turnaround Model, whereby school districts must pursue 12 steps,
including replacing the principal; implementing strategies to recruit,
place and train staff; and instituting a new evaluation system, among
other things;
•Transformation Model, which calls for school districts to pursue
most of the steps associated with the Turnaround Model, with a few
variations, including identifying and rewarding staff who are
increasing student outcomes and providing increased learning time
for students;

•Restart Model, which is focused on converting or closing and
reopening a school under a charter school operator or educational
management organization;
•Closure Model, whereby a school district closes a school and
enrolls its students in schools that are high achieving; or

•Ohio’s Intervention and Improvement Model, which calls for the
school district to pursue similar steps to the Turnaround Model, with
a major modification: instead of replacing the principal, the school
can demonstrate to the Ohio Department of Education that
the current principal has a proven track record of improving
achievement and has the ability to lead the turnaround effort. This is
the only turnaround option that does not require the replacement of
the principal.
The consistent theme across each of Ohio’s five school turnaround
intervention models is leadership. All but one of four models calls for
the removal and replacement of the school principal, signaling the
importance of the school leader in turning around the school.
Ohio currently identifies more than 230 schools as Focus Schools,
which are buildings that receive Title I funds and have the state’s
largest achievement gaps in student performance and graduation
rates.7 These schools receive support and monitoring from regional
support teachers to implement a school improvement plan using the
Ohio Improvement Process (OIP).
The state currently identifies more than 950 schools as Watch Schools.
These are buildings where student subgroups demonstrate low
achievement. School districts are responsible for developing
improvement plans and ensuring that funds are allocated properly
to target these schools.

WHAT TURNAROUND AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
ARE MOVING THE NEEDLE?

M

oving forward, Ohio must draw from best practices to
drive its investments and partnerships with local school
districts to turn around low-performing schools. To that end,
we shine light on the following initiatives that are achieving
results:
•The Cleveland Metropolitan School District, following
several years of unsuccessful reform of its lowestperforming schools under SIG, embarked on a new
strategy of phasing out failing comprehensive high schools
and replacing them with new high school models. Some
schools were developed from scratch; others were
developed from known models. Rather than a total
replacement of principal and staff, the schools took a more
strategic approach, interviewing staff and putting together
design teams comprised of school and community leaders.
District governance and management was also retained, as
opposed to the restart requirement of turning over a school
to a charter school operator or educational management
organization. Since 2012, nine new high schools have opened,
most of which explicitly replaced failing comprehensive
schools. They all benefit from significant school-based
autonomy granted under the groundbreaking Cleveland’s
Plan for Transforming Schools,9 signed into law in July 2012.
As a cohort, new schools in Cleveland are outperforming
peer schools in student achievement, student progress,
student and staff attendance and student and staff retention.

of 5.2 to 15.9 percentage points in reading. Math
improvement increased in all but one grade (seventh),
ranging from 2.1 to 14.8 percentage points.
•The Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL) ) has
turned around 14 previously low-performing schools in
the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) system. AUSL completely
overhauls a low-performing school, including renovating
facilities, bringing in new staff and leadership and
implementing a new curriculum and culture. The schools
remain CPS neighborhood schools serving the same
students, and teachers in the new school are CPS employees
covered by the CPS teacher contract and salary schedule.
Turnaround elementary schools operated by AUSL have
made dramatic achievement gains: schools operated by
AUSL for more than three years have increased their
percentage of students meeting or exceeding standards on
the Illinois State Achievement Test by more than 30 points
and newer turnaround schools are also showing strong
gains. AUSL applies a turnaround framework that includes
an emphasis on positive school culture; engaged parents
and community members; social supports to meet
student needs; clear goals for schools, teams and
individuals; shared responsibility for achievement; a strong
college-prep curriculum and aligned assessments; and
engaging and personalized instruction.

•Cincinnati Public Schools implemented its Elementary
Initiative in 2008-09 to turn around 16 of the district’s most
challenged buildings. Initiative strategies include a

comprehensive audit of each elementary school,
realignment of resources to address the needs of individual
children, the development of success plans for each child,
an intensive focus on mathematics and reading and the
implementation of a summer program named “Fifth
Quarter,” which extended learning time by a month at
each school and expanded early childhood programs.
Additionally, the initiative focuses heavily on the use of
data. Student scores on Ohio’s achievement tests increased
dramatically in 2010. Each grade 3-8 experienced increases

A WORD ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS

I

n many states, charter schools stand as a discrete option
for school turnaround. That is not necessarily true in
Ohio, where, in the case of the Restart Model, districts must
surrender control of the school to an independent charter
school board. Many districts, as a result, have selected the
Turnaround, Transformation or Closure Models, whereby
the school district maintains oversight of the school. While
charter schools have not held a prominent role in the state’s
Turnaround Model portfolio, they do hold a key role in
offering an alternative for students seeking a nontraditional

approach. One such example includes Breakthrough
Schools. Rated the highest network of public charter schools
in Cleveland, Breakthrough educates nearly 3,300 K-8
students across 10 campuses in Cleveland. Overall, its

students performed one point higher (83 percent) than the
statewide average (82 percent) in 2014.10 Philanthropy Ohio
honors such high-value education options and recognizes
that many of the innovations adopted by successful charter
schools could be valuable in district turnaround efforts.

THE CHALLENGE OF RURAL SCHOOL TURNAROUND

S

chool turnaround efforts often paint rural schools with
the same broad brush as their urban and suburban
counterparts. As a result, the efforts inappropriately, and
sometimes detrimentally, apply a one-size-fits-all approach
to rural schools.11 The biggest challenge among these schools
includes the recruitment and retention of effective teachers
and leaders. One emerging solution employed by a number
of rural school districts that comprise the Ohio Appalachian

Collaborative includes the use of collaborative strategies
that have resulted in marked improvements. Ultimately,
sharing resources helps rural schools meet education goals
and objectives by providing access to programs and
services—like professional learning for teachers and
advanced course options for students—that individual
districts would not otherwise be able to afford and offer
on their own.12

HOW WILL THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA)
CHANGE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT & TURNAROUND?

ESSA

includes two very significant changes that affect
states’ efforts to turn around schools: differentiated
accountability and more local control.
•Differentiated Accountability: The Ohio Department of
Education will be required to identify two main categories of
schools for support and improvement: Comprehensive Support
and Improvement Schools and Targeted Support and
Improvement Schools. Comprehensive Support and
Improvement Schools, as defined by ESSA, are very similar to
how Ohio defines and identifies its Priority Schools: the
lowest performing 5 percent of Title I schools as well as high
schools with graduation rates below 67 percent. This category
also includes schools initially identified for Targeted Support
and Improvement Schools that do not meet the state’s criteria
for improving outcomes of underperforming subgroups within
a to-be-determined number of years. Targeted Support and
Improvement Schools include those that have one or more
persistently underperforming student subgroups. These schools
must develop and implement improvement plans that are
informed by indicators in the state’s accountability system,
include “evidence-based interventions” and are approved by
the local school district.
•More Local Control: There are no longer any federal required
interventions or models that school improvement funds must
be used to support; however, the law specifies that efforts
must be “evidence-based.” ESSA does away with the School
Improvement Grant program. Instead, the Ohio Department

of Education will be required to reserve 7 percent of its Title I
funds for school improvement grants. Ninety-five percent of the
funds must be distributed either competitively or by formula to
districts to support schools that are among the lowest
achieving in the state or have consistently underperforming
student subgroups. The department can retain no more than
5 percent of the school improvement funds to carry out certain
activities to implement and monitor grants. Local districts,
through a robust stakeholder engagement process, must identify
the intervention(s) that best meet the needs of their students.
Moving forward, Ohio will have to be thoughtful about
providing guidance to districts, based on lessons learned from
previous school improvement efforts, as they implement
“evidence-based” turnaround strategies.

ABOUT
PHILANTHROPY
OHIO

P

hilanthropy Ohio is an association of
foundations, corporate giving programs,
individuals and organizations actively involved
in philanthropy in Ohio. Its mission is to
provide leadership for philanthropy in Ohio and
to enhance the ability of members to fulfill their
charitable goals. It provides the network, tools
and knowledge to help people engaged in
philanthropy become more effective, powerful

change agents in their communities. Together,
its more than 220 members hold over $50 billion
in assets and provide over $4 billion in grants to
nonprofit organizations that work to improve the
lives of community residents.


OHIO’S CURRENT SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT APPROACH

U

nder the NCLB requirements, schools that failed to make Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP), a measure of student achievement for
multiple years, faced a series of escalating interventions. After passage
of NCLB, the federal government implemented Race to the Top and
School Improvement Grants (SIG), calling for states to identify the
lowest performing 5 percent of schools as “persistently lowest
achieving,” and use SIG funds to implement one of four “reform models”
in these schools: turnaround, transformation, restart and closure.
Ohio’s school improvement policies were built around those four
reform models plus one additional model: intervention and
improvement. Today, Ohio identifies Priority, Focus and Watch schools.
The state’s 129 Priority Schools must select and implement one of
five school turnaround intervention models as a part of its mandatory
school improvement plan: 6
•Turnaround Model, whereby school districts must pursue 12 steps,
including replacing the principal; implementing strategies to recruit,
place and train staff; and instituting a new evaluation system, among
other things;

•Transformation Model, which calls for school districts to pursue
most of the steps associated with the Turnaround Model, with a few
variations, including identifying and rewarding staff who are
increasing student outcomes and providing increased learning time
for students;
•Restart Model, which is focused on converting or closing and
reopening a school under a charter school operator or educational
management organization;
•Closure Model, whereby a school district closes a school and
enrolls its students in schools that are high achieving; or

•Ohio’s Intervention and Improvement Model, which calls for the
school district to pursue similar steps to the Turnaround Model, with
a major modification: instead of replacing the principal, the school
can demonstrate to the Ohio Department of Education that
the current principal has a proven track record of improving
achievement and has the ability to lead the turnaround effort. This is
the only turnaround option that does not require the replacement of
the principal.
The consistent theme across each of Ohio’s five school turnaround
intervention models is leadership. All but one of four models calls for
the removal and replacement of the school principal, signaling the
importance of the school leader in turning around the school.
Ohio currently identifies more than 230 schools as Focus Schools,
which are buildings that receive Title I funds and have the state’s
largest achievement gaps in student performance and graduation
rates.7 These schools receive support and monitoring from regional
support teachers to implement a school improvement plan using the
Ohio Improvement Process (OIP).
The state currently identifies more than 950 schools as Watch Schools.

These are buildings where student subgroups demonstrate low
achievement. School districts are responsible for developing
improvement plans and ensuring that funds are allocated properly
to target these schools.

WHAT TURNAROUND AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
ARE MOVING THE NEEDLE?

M

oving forward, Ohio must draw from best practices to
drive its investments and partnerships with local school
districts to turn around low-performing schools. To that end,
we shine light on the following initiatives that are achieving
results:
•The Cleveland Metropolitan School District, following
several years of unsuccessful reform of its lowestperforming schools under SIG, embarked on a new
strategy of phasing out failing comprehensive high schools
and replacing them with new high school models. Some
schools were developed from scratch; others were
developed from known models. Rather than a total
replacement of principal and staff, the schools took a more
strategic approach, interviewing staff and putting together
design teams comprised of school and community leaders.
District governance and management was also retained, as
opposed to the restart requirement of turning over a school
to a charter school operator or educational management
organization. Since 2012, nine new high schools have opened,
most of which explicitly replaced failing comprehensive
schools. They all benefit from significant school-based

autonomy granted under the groundbreaking Cleveland’s
Plan for Transforming Schools,9 signed into law in July 2012.
As a cohort, new schools in Cleveland are outperforming
peer schools in student achievement, student progress,
student and staff attendance and student and staff retention.

of 5.2 to 15.9 percentage points in reading. Math
improvement increased in all but one grade (seventh),
ranging from 2.1 to 14.8 percentage points.
•The Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL) ) has
turned around 14 previously low-performing schools in
the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) system. AUSL completely
overhauls a low-performing school, including renovating
facilities, bringing in new staff and leadership and
implementing a new curriculum and culture. The schools
remain CPS neighborhood schools serving the same
students, and teachers in the new school are CPS employees
covered by the CPS teacher contract and salary schedule.
Turnaround elementary schools operated by AUSL have
made dramatic achievement gains: schools operated by
AUSL for more than three years have increased their
percentage of students meeting or exceeding standards on
the Illinois State Achievement Test by more than 30 points
and newer turnaround schools are also showing strong
gains. AUSL applies a turnaround framework that includes
an emphasis on positive school culture; engaged parents
and community members; social supports to meet
student needs; clear goals for schools, teams and
individuals; shared responsibility for achievement; a strong
college-prep curriculum and aligned assessments; and

engaging and personalized instruction.

•Cincinnati Public Schools implemented its Elementary
Initiative in 2008-09 to turn around 16 of the district’s most
challenged buildings. Initiative strategies include a
comprehensive audit of each elementary school,
realignment of resources to address the needs of individual
children, the development of success plans for each child,
an intensive focus on mathematics and reading and the
implementation of a summer program named “Fifth
Quarter,” which extended learning time by a month at
each school and expanded early childhood programs.
Additionally, the initiative focuses heavily on the use of
data. Student scores on Ohio’s achievement tests increased
dramatically in 2010. Each grade 3-8 experienced increases

A WORD ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS

I

n many states, charter schools stand as a discrete option
for school turnaround. That is not necessarily true in
Ohio, where, in the case of the Restart Model, districts must
surrender control of the school to an independent charter
school board. Many districts, as a result, have selected the
Turnaround, Transformation or Closure Models, whereby
the school district maintains oversight of the school. While
charter schools have not held a prominent role in the state’s
Turnaround Model portfolio, they do hold a key role in
offering an alternative for students seeking a nontraditional

approach. One such example includes Breakthrough
Schools. Rated the highest network of public charter schools
in Cleveland, Breakthrough educates nearly 3,300 K-8
students across 10 campuses in Cleveland. Overall, its
students performed one point higher (83 percent) than the
statewide average (82 percent) in 2014.10 Philanthropy Ohio
honors such high-value education options and recognizes
that many of the innovations adopted by successful charter
schools could be valuable in district turnaround efforts.

THE CHALLENGE OF RURAL SCHOOL TURNAROUND

S

chool turnaround efforts often paint rural schools with
the same broad brush as their urban and suburban
counterparts. As a result, the efforts inappropriately, and
sometimes detrimentally, apply a one-size-fits-all approach
to rural schools.11 The biggest challenge among these schools
includes the recruitment and retention of effective teachers
and leaders. One emerging solution employed by a number
of rural school districts that comprise the Ohio Appalachian

Collaborative includes the use of collaborative strategies
that have resulted in marked improvements. Ultimately,
sharing resources helps rural schools meet education goals
and objectives by providing access to programs and
services—like professional learning for teachers and
advanced course options for students—that individual

districts would not otherwise be able to afford and offer
on their own.12

HOW WILL THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA)
CHANGE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT & TURNAROUND?

ESSA

includes two very significant changes that affect
states’ efforts to turn around schools: differentiated
accountability and more local control.
•Differentiated Accountability: The Ohio Department of
Education will be required to identify two main categories of
schools for support and improvement: Comprehensive Support
and Improvement Schools and Targeted Support and
Improvement Schools. Comprehensive Support and
Improvement Schools, as defined by ESSA, are very similar to
how Ohio defines and identifies its Priority Schools: the
lowest performing 5 percent of Title I schools as well as high
schools with graduation rates below 67 percent. This category
also includes schools initially identified for Targeted Support
and Improvement Schools that do not meet the state’s criteria
for improving outcomes of underperforming subgroups within
a to-be-determined number of years. Targeted Support and
Improvement Schools include those that have one or more
persistently underperforming student subgroups. These schools
must develop and implement improvement plans that are
informed by indicators in the state’s accountability system,
include “evidence-based interventions” and are approved by
the local school district.

•More Local Control: There are no longer any federal required
interventions or models that school improvement funds must
be used to support; however, the law specifies that efforts
must be “evidence-based.” ESSA does away with the School
Improvement Grant program. Instead, the Ohio Department
of Education will be required to reserve 7 percent of its Title I
funds for school improvement grants. Ninety-five percent of the
funds must be distributed either competitively or by formula to
districts to support schools that are among the lowest
achieving in the state or have consistently underperforming
student subgroups. The department can retain no more than
5 percent of the school improvement funds to carry out certain
activities to implement and monitor grants. Local districts,
through a robust stakeholder engagement process, must identify
the intervention(s) that best meet the needs of their students.
Moving forward, Ohio will have to be thoughtful about
providing guidance to districts, based on lessons learned from
previous school improvement efforts, as they implement
“evidence-based” turnaround strategies.

ABOUT
PHILANTHROPY
OHIO

P

hilanthropy Ohio is an association of
foundations, corporate giving programs,
individuals and organizations actively involved
in philanthropy in Ohio. Its mission is to

provide leadership for philanthropy in Ohio and
to enhance the ability of members to fulfill their
charitable goals. It provides the network, tools
and knowledge to help people engaged in
philanthropy become more effective, powerful
change agents in their communities. Together,
its more than 220 members hold over $50 billion
in assets and provide over $4 billion in grants to
nonprofit organizations that work to improve the
lives of community residents.


OHIO’S CURRENT SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT APPROACH

U

nder the NCLB requirements, schools that failed to make Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP), a measure of student achievement for
multiple years, faced a series of escalating interventions. After passage
of NCLB, the federal government implemented Race to the Top and
School Improvement Grants (SIG), calling for states to identify the
lowest performing 5 percent of schools as “persistently lowest
achieving,” and use SIG funds to implement one of four “reform models”
in these schools: turnaround, transformation, restart and closure.
Ohio’s school improvement policies were built around those four
reform models plus one additional model: intervention and
improvement. Today, Ohio identifies Priority, Focus and Watch schools.
The state’s 129 Priority Schools must select and implement one of
five school turnaround intervention models as a part of its mandatory

school improvement plan: 6
•Turnaround Model, whereby school districts must pursue 12 steps,
including replacing the principal; implementing strategies to recruit,
place and train staff; and instituting a new evaluation system, among
other things;
•Transformation Model, which calls for school districts to pursue
most of the steps associated with the Turnaround Model, with a few
variations, including identifying and rewarding staff who are
increasing student outcomes and providing increased learning time
for students;
•Restart Model, which is focused on converting or closing and
reopening a school under a charter school operator or educational
management organization;
•Closure Model, whereby a school district closes a school and
enrolls its students in schools that are high achieving; or

•Ohio’s Intervention and Improvement Model, which calls for the
school district to pursue similar steps to the Turnaround Model, with
a major modification: instead of replacing the principal, the school
can demonstrate to the Ohio Department of Education that
the current principal has a proven track record of improving
achievement and has the ability to lead the turnaround effort. This is
the only turnaround option that does not require the replacement of
the principal.
The consistent theme across each of Ohio’s five school turnaround
intervention models is leadership. All but one of four models calls for
the removal and replacement of the school principal, signaling the
importance of the school leader in turning around the school.
Ohio currently identifies more than 230 schools as Focus Schools,
which are buildings that receive Title I funds and have the state’s

largest achievement gaps in student performance and graduation
rates.7 These schools receive support and monitoring from regional
support teachers to implement a school improvement plan using the
Ohio Improvement Process (OIP).
The state currently identifies more than 950 schools as Watch Schools.
These are buildings where student subgroups demonstrate low
achievement. School districts are responsible for developing
improvement plans and ensuring that funds are allocated properly
to target these schools.

WHAT TURNAROUND AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
ARE MOVING THE NEEDLE?

M

oving forward, Ohio must draw from best practices to
drive its investments and partnerships with local school
districts to turn around low-performing schools. To that end,
we shine light on the following initiatives that are achieving
results:
•The Cleveland Metropolitan School District, following
several years of unsuccessful reform of its lowestperforming schools under SIG, embarked on a new
strategy of phasing out failing comprehensive high schools
and replacing them with new high school models. Some
schools were developed from scratch; others were
developed from known models. Rather than a total
replacement of principal and staff, the schools took a more
strategic approach, interviewing staff and putting together
design teams comprised of school and community leaders.
District governance and management was also retained, as

opposed to the restart requirement of turning over a school
to a charter school operator or educational management
organization. Since 2012, nine new high schools have opened,
most of which explicitly replaced failing comprehensive
schools. They all benefit from significant school-based
autonomy granted under the groundbreaking Cleveland’s
Plan for Transforming Schools,9 signed into law in July 2012.
As a cohort, new schools in Cleveland are outperforming
peer schools in student achievement, student progress,
student and staff attendance and student and staff retention.

of 5.2 to 15.9 percentage points in reading. Math
improvement increased in all but one grade (seventh),
ranging from 2.1 to 14.8 percentage points.
•The Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL) ) has
turned around 14 previously low-performing schools in
the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) system. AUSL completely
overhauls a low-performing school, including renovating
facilities, bringing in new staff and leadership and
implementing a new curriculum and culture. The schools
remain CPS neighborhood schools serving the same
students, and teachers in the new school are CPS employees
covered by the CPS teacher contract and salary schedule.
Turnaround elementary schools operated by AUSL have
made dramatic achievement gains: schools operated by
AUSL for more than three years have increased their
percentage of students meeting or exceeding standards on
the Illinois State Achievement Test by more than 30 points
and newer turnaround schools are also showing strong
gains. AUSL applies a turnaround framework that includes

an emphasis on positive school culture; engaged parents
and community members; social supports to meet
student needs; clear goals for schools, teams and
individuals; shared responsibility for achievement; a strong
college-prep curriculum and aligned assessments; and
engaging and personalized instruction.

•Cincinnati Public Schools implemented its Elementary
Initiative in 2008-09 to turn around 16 of the district’s most
challenged buildings. Initiative strategies include a
comprehensive audit of each elementary school,
realignment of resources to address the needs of individual
children, the development of success plans for each child,
an intensive focus on mathematics and reading and the
implementation of a summer program named “Fifth
Quarter,” which extended learning time by a month at
each school and expanded early childhood programs.
Additionally, the initiative focuses heavily on the use of
data. Student scores on Ohio’s achievement tests increased
dramatically in 2010. Each grade 3-8 experienced increases

A WORD ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS

I

n many states, charter schools stand as a discrete option
for school turnaround. That is not necessarily true in
Ohio, where, in the case of the Restart Model, districts must
surrender control of the school to an independent charter
school board. Many districts, as a result, have selected the

Turnaround, Transformation or Closure Models, whereby
the school district maintains oversight of the school. While
charter schools have not held a prominent role in the state’s
Turnaround Model portfolio, they do hold a key role in
offering an alternative for students seeking a nontraditional

approach. One such example includes Breakthrough
Schools. Rated the highest network of public charter schools
in Cleveland, Breakthrough educates nearly 3,300 K-8
students across 10 campuses in Cleveland. Overall, its
students performed one point higher (83 percent) than the
statewide average (82 percent) in 2014.10 Philanthropy Ohio
honors such high-value education options and recognizes
that many of the innovations adopted by successful charter
schools could be valuable in district turnaround efforts.

THE CHALLENGE OF RURAL SCHOOL TURNAROUND

S

chool turnaround efforts often paint rural schools with
the same broad brush as their urban and suburban
counterparts. As a result, the efforts inappropriately, and
sometimes detrimentally, apply a one-size-fits-all approach
to rural schools.11 The biggest challenge among these schools
includes the recruitment and retention of effective teachers
and leaders. One emerging solution employed by a number
of rural school districts that comprise the Ohio Appalachian

Collaborative includes the use of collaborative strategies

that have resulted in marked improvements. Ultimately,
sharing resources helps rural schools meet education goals
and objectives by providing access to programs and
services—like professional learning for teachers and
advanced course options for students—that individual
districts would not otherwise be able to afford and offer
on their own.12

HOW WILL THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA)
CHANGE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT & TURNAROUND?

ESSA

includes two very significant changes that affect
states’ efforts to turn around schools: differentiated
accountability and more local control.
•Differentiated Accountability: The Ohio Department of
Education will be required to identify two main categories of
schools for support and improvement: Comprehensive Support
and Improvement Schools and Targeted Support and
Improvement Schools. Comprehensive Support and
Improvement Schools, as defined by ESSA, are very similar to
how Ohio defines and identifies its Priority Schools: the
lowest performing 5 percent of Title I schools as well as high
schools with graduation rates below 67 percent. This category
also includes schools initially identified for Targeted Support
and Improvement Schools that do not meet the state’s criteria
for improving outcomes of underperforming subgroups within
a to-be-determined number of years. Targeted Support and
Improvement Schools include those that have one or more

persistently underperforming student subgroups. These schools
must develop and implement improvement plans that are
informed by indicators in the state’s accountability system,
include “evidence-based interventions” and are approved by
the local school district.
•More Local Control: There are no longer any federal required
interventions or models that school improvement funds must
be used to support; however, the law specifies that efforts
must be “evidence-based.” ESSA does away with the School
Improvement Grant program. Instead, the Ohio Department
of Education will be required to reserve 7 percent of its Title I
funds for school improvement grants. Ninety-five percent of the
funds must be distributed either competitively or by formula to
districts to support schools that are among the lowest
achieving in the state or have consistently underperforming
student subgroups. The department can retain no more than
5 percent of the school improvement funds to carry out certain
activities to implement and monitor grants. Local districts,
through a robust stakeholder engagement process, must identify
the intervention(s) that best meet the needs of their students.
Moving forward, Ohio will have to be thoughtful about
providing guidance to districts, based on lessons learned from
previous school improvement efforts, as they implement
“evidence-based” turnaround strategies.

ABOUT
PHILANTHROPY
OHIO

P

hilanthropy Ohio is an association of
foundations, corporate giving programs,
individuals and organizations actively involved
in philanthropy in Ohio. Its mission is to
provide leadership for philanthropy in Ohio and
to enhance the ability of members to fulfill their
charitable goals. It provides the network, tools
and knowledge to help people engaged in
philanthropy become more effective, powerful
change agents in their communities. Together,
its more than 220 members hold over $50 billion
in assets and provide over $4 billion in grants to
nonprofit organizations that work to improve the
lives of community residents.


talking points and key messages that a District Leadership Team or Community School Leadership
Team (DLT/CSLT) and Building Leadership Teams (BLTs) can use to facilitate the process. It contains
scant research because this information can be found in the Ohio Leadership Development Framework
Modules (www.ohioleadership.org). Further online training on each stage (Stages 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4)
can be found at this same website.

OHIO’S IMPROVEMENT PROCESS

S

chool districts that have persistently failing schools are required to embark upon the Ohio
Improvement Process (OIP), which contains four stages as identified in Figure 1.

Created
by the Ohio
Department of Education in 2012,
the OIP seeks to ensure that all Ohio
The
Ohio
Improvement
Process
schools are high performing. All Priority Schools are required to implement the OIP.
To see the full-size visual, click here.
Figure 1 – Ohio Improvement Process

STAGE 0

Prepare for the OIP.

the necessary collaborative structures, it describes the practices of communication and engagement, decision making, and resource management that are threaded throughout the OIP.

STAGE 2
Develop a Focused Plan.

How

do these teams
work in districts
and schools?

How

do these teams

work in districts
and schools?

Develop goal(s),
strategies, indicators, and
action steps focused on
Stage 1 critical needs.

Use data to identify
critical needs.

• District and Community School
Leadership Team (DLT/CSLT)
• Building Leadership Teams (BLTs)

How

do these teams
work in districts
and schools?

• Teacher-Based Teams (TBTs)

How

STEP 1

Collect and
chart data.

Review data.
Gather evidence of
implementation and
impact.

STEP 5

Collect, chart,
and analyze
post data.

STEP 4

Implement
changes
consistently.

TheOHIO
Ohio
5-Step
5-STEP
Process

STEP 2

do these teams
work in districts
and schools?

Implement strategies

and action steps to
achieve district goals.

Analyze data.

PROCESS
STEP 3
Establish shared
expectations for
implementing

implementation and
effect on changes in
adult practice and
student learning.

Policy Brief
Improvement
andand
Turnaround
Policy
Brief#4:
#4:School
School
Improvement
Turnaround

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
MOVING
FORWARD

RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
MOVING
FORWARD

W

ith
than
370,000
of Ohio’s
students students
affected by affected
inadequateby
learning
environments,
timeenvironments,
is of the
ithmore
more
than
370,000
of Ohio’s
inadequate
learning

time is of the

essence.
Ohio

mustmust
continue
to advance
school improvement
efforts and capitalize
on flexibility
ushered in
ESSA. To that
end,
essence.
Ohio
continue
to advance
school improvement
efforts
and capitalize
onbyflexibility
ushered

Philanthropy
Ohio
urges
Ohio’s
leaders and stakeholders
by
ESSA. To
that
end,
Philanthropy
Ohio urgesto:Ohio’s leaders and stakeholders to:

in

1. Build
Build a a
pipeline
of effective
teachersteachers
and leaders
who
are ready
to step
the state’s
lowest
schools
and performing
turn them around,
1.
pipeline
of effective
and
leaders
who
areinto
ready
to step
intoperforming
the state’s
lowest
whether

traditionally
prepared
or
alternatively
trained.
Great
teachers
and
strong
leaders
matter.
The
state
must
examine
the effectiveness
schools and turn them around, whether traditionally prepared or alternatively trained. Great teachers
and
and
retention
rates
of
educator
preparation
programs
and
alternative
programs
operating
in

the
state,
including
Woodrow
Wilson, Teach
strong leaders matter. The state must examine the effectiveness and retention rates of educator preparation
for America and
Ohio, and,
if worthy,
continue toin
support
and expand
such initiatives.
programs
andBRIGHT
alternative
programs
operating
the state,
including
Woodrow Wilson, Teach for America and
Ohio,
and,
if worthy, continue
to support
expand such
2. BRIGHT
Push hard to
identify
“evidence-based”

turnaround
strategies and
and implement
those initiatives.
approaches at even greater scale. This means leveraging the
expertise
of key education
partners, including
Battelle for strategies
Kids,
2. Push
hard
to identify
“evidence-based”
turnaround
and implement those approaches at even
various
Education
Service
Centers,
colleges
of
education
and
others
whoeducation
have expertise
in implementing
greater scale. This means leveraging the expertise of key
partners,

including Battelle for Kids,
transformative
teaching,
leading,
instructional,
curricular
and
support
strategies.
various Education Service Centers, colleges of education and others who have expertise in implementing
teaching,innovation
leading, instructional,
curricular
support
3. transformative
Create a school improvement
fund, including Title
I dollars,and
whereby
schoolsstrategies.
receive grants and funding based on top-flight

educational
criteria, improvement
which is rooted in innovation
and informed by
the state’s
SIG evaluation
report currently
underway

at the
Ohio Department
3. Create
a school
fund,
including
Title I dollars,
whereby
schools
receive
grants and
of
Education.
The
development
of
this
fund
should
build
on
lessons
learned
from
Ohio
and
across
the
country,
including

the evaluation
significant
funding based on top-flight educational criteria, which is rooted in and informed by the state’s SIG
investments
of
Ohio’s
Straight
A
Fund.
report currently underway at the Ohio Department of Education. The development of this fund should build
lessons
learned from
Ohio and
across thebest
country,
including
the
significant
investments
of Ohio’s Straight A
4. on
Prioritize
interventions
and identify
and disseminate
practices
to that end.
The
Ohio Department
of

Fund.
Education must become a partner in helping local leaders, faculty and staff understand and consider options that demonstrate success
and support interventions
local turnaround efforts.
We know and
that one
size does not best
fit all. practices
We also know
schools
guidance
4. Prioritize
and identify
disseminate
to that
thatlocal
end.
The need
Ohioadditional
Department
of and
support
to
undertake
this
work
on
behalf
of
students.

Education must become a partner in helping local leaders, faculty and staff understand and consider options
demonstrate
success
and support local
turnaround
efforts.toWe
know
that by
one
not fitofall.
We also
5. that
Examine
and retool the
use of “transformation
specialists”
who are assigned
Priority
Schools
thesize
Ohiodoes
Department
Education.
know
that
local
schools
need
additional
guidance

and
support
to
undertake
this
work
on
behalf
of
students.
Often ODE is too focused on compliance and not enough on supporting and connecting schools to resources aimed at facilitating dramatic turnaround
for retool
our students.
Transformation
specialists should
be supported
andare
prepared
to fully
ESSA-related
evi5. Examine
and
the use
of “transformation
specialists”
who
assigned
to understand
Priority Schools
by the

dence-based
strategies of
andEducation.
equipped to help
principals
and
teachers
in Priority
Schools implement
those
strategies.
Ohio
Department
Often
ODE is
too
focused
on compliance
and not
enough
on supporting and
resources
aimed
facilitating
dramatic
for our students.
6. connecting
Report on the schools
impact ofto
Ohio’s

previous
school at
improvement
processes
andturnaround
Straight A investments.
The results Transformation
of these evaluations
specialists
should
be
supported
and
prepared
to
fully
understand
ESSA-related
evidence-based
strategies
should be used to drive state and local direction for leveraging ESSA flexibilities and maximizing its approach to deploying
funds. and
equipped to help principals and teachers in Priority Schools implement those strategies.
These steps will help put Ohio on a new path for turning around the state’s failing schools and ensuring

6.
Report on
themore
impact
of Ohio’s

school
improvement
processes and Straight A investments. The
opportunity
for the
than 370,000
Ohio previous
students enrolled
in those
schools.
results of these evaluations should be used to drive state and local direction for leveraging ESSA flexibilities
and maximizing its approach to deploying funds.
These steps will help put Ohio on a new path for turning around the state’s failing schools and ensuring
opportunity for the more than 370,000 Ohio students enrolled in those schools.

ENDNOTES
ENDNOTES
________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

MUCH
MONEY
HAS
BEENSPENT
SPENT ON
IMPROVEMENT
EFFORTS?
HOWHOW
MUCH
MONEY

HAS
BEEN
ONSCHOOL
SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT
EFFORTS?

F

ederal
that have
dedicated
to Ohio’s
ederalinvestments
investments
thatbeen
have
been dedicated
School
Improvement
(SIG) over Grants
the last eight
to Ohio’s
School Grants
Improvement
(SIG)

years total
as shown
in the

following
table.
over
the $266
last million,
eight years
total
$266
million,
as
shown
in tothe
table. the state received
In addition
SIGfollowing
and ARRA funding,

$558
million into
federal
funds infunding,
2015. It is expected
to
In
addition
SIG Title
andIARRA
the state
receive an estimated
$575 million

in 2016.
In spite
of these
received
$558 million
in federal
Title
I funds
major
investments,
it
is
unclear
if
Ohio’s
school
improvein 2015. It is expected to receive an estimated
ment approach
been successful.
As these
of August
2016,
$575
million has
in 2016.
In spite of
major
the
Ohio
Department

of
Education
has
not
finalized
investments, it is unclear if Ohio’s school and
released its evaluation
of SIG.has been successful.
improvement
approach
As of August 2016, the Ohio Department of
Education has not finalized and released its
evaluation of SIG.





Note:
Note: This
This brief
brief defines
defines “failing
“failing schools”
schools” as
as schools
schools whose
whose local
local report
report cards

cards consist
consist of
of Fs
Fs and
and Ds
Ds without
without any
any As
As and
and Bs.
Bs.
3
3 FSG Social Impact Advisors, The School Turnaround Field Guide (2010), accessed August 15, 2016,
FSG Social Impact Advisors, The School Turnaround Field Guide (2010), accessed August 15, 2016, />knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Turnaround-Field-Guide.pdf.
knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Turnaround-Field-Guide.pdf.

YearInvestment
Year
Investment
2009
2009

2010
2010
2011
2011
2012
2012
2013
2013

2014
2014
2015
2015
2016
2016



regular
$132M (includes $20M in regular
SIG
SIG funds and $112M in ARRA)
$20M
$21M
$20M
$20M
$19M
$18M
$16M

Mark Edmundson,
Edmundson, Why
Why read?
read? (New
(New York:
York: Bloomsbury,
Bloomsbury, 2004);
2004); E.D.
E.D. Hirsch,

Hirsch, The
The Making
Making of
of Americans
Americans (New
(New Haven:
Haven: Yale
Yale University
University Press,
Press, 2009).
2009).
Mark
Ohio
Department of
of Education,
Education, “Ohio
“Ohio School
School Report
Report Cards,”
Cards,” accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, /> />Ohio Department
default.aspx
default.aspx
1
1

2

2











Mike
Schmoker, Leading
Leading with
with Focus;
Focus; Elevating
Elevating the
the Essentials
Essentials for
for School
School and
and District
District Improvement
Improvement (2016).
(2016).
Mike Schmoker,
Kate
Taylor, “After
“After 2

2 Years,
Years, Progress
Progress Is
Is Hard
Hard to
to See
See in
in Some
Some Struggling
Struggling City
City Schools,”
Schools,” New
New York
York Times,
Times, July
July 19,
19, 2016,
2016, accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15,
Kate Taylor,
2016,
2016, /> />4
4
5
5

6
6 Ohio Department of Education, “Priority Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, o. gov/Topics/School-Improvement/

Ohio Department of Education, “Priority Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, o. gov/Topics/School-Improvement/
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Priority-Schools.
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Priority-Schools.
7
7 Ohio Department of Education, “Focus Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Ohio Department of Education, “Focus Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Focus-Schools.
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Focus-Schools.
8
8 Ohio Department of Education, “Watch Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Ohio Department of Education, “Watch Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Watch-Schools.
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Watch-Schools.
9
9 Cleveland’s Plan for Transforming Schools, accessed August 15, 2016, />Cleveland’s Plan for Transforming Schools, accessed August 15, 2016, />Centricity/Domain/98/ClevelandPlanandLegislation.pdf.
Centricity/Domain/98/ClevelandPlanandLegislation.pdf.

Cincinnati Public
Public Schools,
Schools, “Elementary
“Elementary Initiative,”
Initiative,” accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, /> />Cincinnati
elementary-initiative.
elementary-initiative.
11
11 Sara Mead, Turning Around Low-Performing Schools (2012), accessed August 15, 2016, />Sara Mead, Turning Around Low-Performing Schools (2012), accessed August 15, 2016, />standleadershipcenter.org/files/media/Turn%20Arounds.pdf.
standleadershipcenter.org/files/media/Turn%20Arounds.pdf.
10
10

500 SouthStreet,
Front Street, Suite900
900
500 South
37 WestFront
Broad Street,Suite
Suite 800
Columbus,
43215-7628
Columbus,
OhioOhio
43215-4198
Columbus,
Ohio
43215-7628

ã 614.224.1344

614.224.1344

ã ã614.224.1344

www.philanthropyohio.org
www.philanthropyohio.org

www.philanthropyohio.org

Philanthropy
Ohio
2016

Philanthropy
Ohio
â â2016

Breakthrough Schools,
Schools, Annual
Annual Reports,
Reports, accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, /> />Breakthrough
Danette Parsley
Parsley &
& Rhonda
Rhonda Barton,
Barton, “School
“School Turnaround
Turnaround in
in the
the Rural
Rural Context,”
Context,” accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, />
Danette
northwest-matters/school-turnaround-rural-context.
northwest-matters/school-turnaround-rural-context.

12
12
13
13

Lauren Camera,
Camera, “Rural
“Rural School
School Collaboratives:
Collaboratives: Key
Key to
to Success?”
Success?” U.S.
U.S. News
News &
& World
World Report,
Report, accessed
accessed August
August 16,
16, 2016,
2016,
Lauren
/> />
14
14

THE URGENCY
TURNING

AROUND
LOW-PERFORMING
SCHOOLS:
THE
URGENCYOFOF
TURNING
AROUND
LOW-PERFORMING
EVERY CHILD
DESERVES
A GREAT
EDUCATION
SCHOOLS:
EVERY
CHILD
DESERVES
A GREAT EDUCATION

P

hilanthropy
Ohio
stands
resolute
that eachthat
and every
hilanthropy
Ohio
stands
resolute

eachOhio
andstudent,
every
no
matter
his/her zip
deserves
Ohio
student,
no code,
matter
his/her

zip code, deserves
access toto
a high-performing
school that
is equipped
the best with
teachers,
access
a high-performing
school
that iswith
equipped
leaders,
instructional
strategies,
the best teachers, leaders, instructional strategies,
community engagement

effortsefforts
and wraparound
supports thatsupports
result
community
engagement
and wraparound
in
student
success.
The
research
is
decisive:
a
well-rounded
education
that result in student success. The research is decisive: a
has life-altering effects
on everyhas
aspect
of society, particularly
poor.
well-rounded
education
life-altering
effects ontheevery
New
evidence
from

the
Brookings
Institute
affirms
the
effects
of
a
aspect of society, particularly the poor. New evidencequality
education
individual incomes,
earnings,
social mobility,
health
from
theon
Brookings
Institutelifetime
affirms
the effects
of a quality
1
and
life
expectancy.
education on individual incomes, lifetime earnings, social
1
mobility,
health
and life

expectancy.
Despite all of
the evidence
pointing
to the importance of a high-quality
education,all
Ohio
to be challenged
high importance
number of schools
Despite
ofcontinues
the evidence
pointingbytoa the
of
that
fall
short
of
meeting
the
education
needs
of
their
students.
Of the
a high-quality education, Ohio continues to be challenged
state’s
more number

than 3,400 of
schools,
about
820 fall
(25 percent)
struggle
with the
by
a high
schools
that
short of
meeting
2
low
performance.
More
than
370,000
students
are
currently
enrolled
in
education needs of their students. Of the state’s more than
those
schools.
Most
serve
students

in
urban,
high-poverty
communities.
3,400 schools, about 820 (25 percent) struggle with low
2 category of schools is emerging across Ohio’s cities
Another troubling
More than 370,000 students are currently
performance.
and
suburbs:
those
that
receive passing
grades students
on their local
cards,
enrolled in those
schools.
Most serve
inreport
urban,
but,
upon
closer
examination,
face
continued
achievement
gaps

among
high-poverty communities. Another troubling category of
student subgroups.
And, across
high-poverty,
rural
school
districts,
whichthose
dot
schools
is emerging
Ohio’s
cities
and
suburbs:
the
state’s
landscape
and
serve
more
than
170,000
students,
face
their
own
that receive passing grades on their local report cards, but,
unique

sets
of
challenges.
Philanthropy
Ohio
believes
it
is
unacceptable
to
upon closer examination, face continued achievement gaps
deny
any
student,
whether
in
an
urban,
suburban
or
rural
school
setting,
among student subgroups. And, high-poverty, rural school
access to a high-quality
Doing
so strips students
of themore
keys
districts,

which doteducation.
the state’s
landscape
and serve
they
need
to
unlock
their
future
economic
opportunities
that
are
all
but
than 170,000 students, face their own unique sets of chalguaranteed
with
the
right
education
opportunities.
lenges. Philanthropy Ohio believes it is unacceptable to
deny any student, whether in an urban, suburban or rural
school setting, access to a high-quality education. Doing so
strips students of the keys they need to unlock their future
economic opportunities that are all but guaranteed with
the right education opportunities.

Ohio’s education

leaders
have been
attempting,
with little success,
turn
Ohio’s
education
leaders
have
been attempting,
with to
little
around
the
state’s
lowest
performing
schools
for
nearly
14
years,
since
success, to turn around the state’s lowest performing the
passage offor
the nearly
No Child14
Left
Behind
Act (NCLB)

in 2002. of
Yet,the
more
than a
schools
years,
since
the passage
No
decade
later,
370,000
students
still
remain
trapped
in
inadequate
learning
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002. Yet, more than
It is370,000
time for education
to stop, take
stock, pool
aenvironments.
decade later,
studentsleaders
still remain
trapped
in

resources
and
supports
and
determine
a
more
effective
path
inadequate learning environments. It is time for forward.
education
leaders
to stop,
take success
stock, has
pool
resources
supports
While school
turnaround
been
somewhatand
fleeting
over the last
and
determine
more
effective
path forward.
decade,

we have at aleast
learned
some important
lessons, which, based

upon theschool
evidence,
must anchor success
our path forward:
While
turnaround
has been somewhat
fleeting
the last
decade,
we have at
least
learned
some
• School over
leadership
and teacher
effectiveness
stand
as the
most critical
important
which,
upon
the evidence,

factors for lessons,
school success.
Thisbased
is why we
dedicated
Brief #1 to must
the
anchor
ourcannot
path turn
forward:
topic. You
around a school without a top-flight leader and

effective teachers.
• School
leadership and teacher effectiveness stand as the
factors for school
success.
This
why we
• most
Schoolcritical
boards, superintendents
and union
leaders
areis
integral
to
dedicated

Briefturnaround
#1 to theefforts.
topic.These
Youleaders
cannot
turn
around
a
successful school
must
have
an
school
without
a top-flight
leader aand
aligned vision
and jointly
agree to support
plan effective
for turning teachers.
around a
3
school building.
• School
boards,
superintendents and union leaders are
integral
to
successful

school
turnaround
efforts. These
• High quality curriculum and
instruction
are also key
leaders
must
have
an
aligned
vision
and
jointly
to
ingredients, and these are dependent upon effective schoolagree
leadership
3
4 turning around a school building.
and
support
a
plan
for
and rigorous expectations.

•
quality curriculum
and instruction
are also key

• High
A sense-of-urgency
must be balanced
with perseverance
ingredients,
and
these
are
dependent
upon
and an eye toward the long game. There is no evidenceeffective
of a school
4
school
leadership
expectations.
improvement
initiativeand
in therigorous
country that
has demonstrated long-term

success
and showed
•A
sense-of-urgency
must be balanced with perseverance
5
improvement
twothe

or three
Lasting
and
an eye within
toward
longyears.
game.
Thereschool
is noimprovement
evidence
takes
time, resources,
leadership,initiative in the country that
of
a school
improvement
community
support and
buy-in.
has
demonstrated
long-term
success and showed
school
improvement
within
two
or
three
years.5 Lasting

• School governance, operations and fiscal management
all play
into the
improvement
takes
time,
resources,
leadership,
success of turning around a lowcommunity
support
andbe
buy-in.
performing school
and cannot
ignored.

• School governance, operations and fiscal management
all play into the success of turning around a lowperforming school and cannot be ignored.


talking points and key messages that a District Leadership Team or Community School Leadership
Team (DLT/CSLT) and Building Leadership Teams (BLTs) can use to facilitate the process. It contains
scant research because this information can be found in the Ohio Leadership Development Framework
Modules (www.ohioleadership.org). Further online training on each stage (Stages 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4)
can be found at this same website.

OHIO’S IMPROVEMENT PROCESS

S

chool districts that have persistently failing schools are required to embark upon the Ohio
Improvement Process (OIP), which contains four stages as identified in Figure 1.

Created
by the Ohio
Department of Education in 2012,
the OIP seeks to ensure that all Ohio
The
Ohio
Improvement
Process
schools are high performing. All Priority Schools are required to implement the OIP.
To see the full-size visual, click here.
Figure 1 – Ohio Improvement Process

STAGE 0

Prepare for the OIP.

the necessary collaborative structures, it describes the practices of communication and engagement, decision making, and resource management that are threaded throughout the OIP.

STAGE 2
Develop a Focused Plan.

How

do these teams
work in districts
and schools?

How

do these teams
work in districts
and schools?

Develop goal(s),
strategies, indicators, and
action steps focused on
Stage 1 critical needs.

Use data to identify
critical needs.

• District and Community School
Leadership Team (DLT/CSLT)
• Building Leadership Teams (BLTs)

How

do these teams
work in districts
and schools?

• Teacher-Based Teams (TBTs)

How

STEP 1

Collect and
chart data.

Review data.
Gather evidence of
implementation and
impact.

STEP 5

Collect, chart,
and analyze
post data.

STEP 4

Implement
changes
consistently.

TheOHIO
Ohio
5-Step
5-STEP
Process

STEP 2

do these teams
work in districts

and schools?

Implement strategies
and action steps to
achieve district goals.

Analyze data.

PROCESS
STEP 3
Establish shared
expectations for
implementing

implementation and
effect on changes in
adult practice and
student learning.

Policy Brief
Improvement
andand
Turnaround
Policy
Brief#4:
#4:School
School
Improvement
Turnaround

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
MOVING
FORWARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
MOVING
FORWARD

W

ith
than
370,000
of Ohio’s
students students
affected by affected
inadequateby
learning
environments,
timeenvironments,
is of the
ithmore
more
than
370,000
of Ohio’s
inadequate
learning

time is of the

essence.
Ohio
mustmust
continue
to advance
school improvement
efforts and capitalize
on flexibility
ushered in
ESSA. To that
end,
essence.
Ohio
continue
to advance
school improvement
efforts
and capitalize
onbyflexibility
ushered

Philanthropy
Ohio
urges
Ohio’s
leaders and stakeholders
by
ESSA. To
that

end,
Philanthropy
Ohio urgesto:Ohio’s leaders and stakeholders to:

in

1. Build
Build a a
pipeline
of effective
teachersteachers
and leaders
who
are ready
to step
the state’s
lowest
schools
and performing
turn them around,
1.
pipeline
of effective
and
leaders
who
areinto
ready
to step
intoperforming

the state’s
lowest
whether
traditionally
prepared
or
alternatively
trained.
Great
teachers
and
strong
leaders
matter.
The
state
must
examine
the effectiveness
schools and turn them around, whether traditionally prepared or alternatively trained. Great teachers
and
and
retention
rates
of
educator
preparation
programs
and
alternative

programs
operating
in
the
state,
including
Woodrow
Wilson, Teach
strong leaders matter. The state must examine the effectiveness and retention rates of educator preparation
for America and
Ohio, and,
if worthy,
continue toin
support
and expand
such initiatives.
programs
andBRIGHT
alternative
programs
operating
the state,
including
Woodrow Wilson, Teach for America and
Ohio,
and,
if worthy, continue
to support
expand such
2. BRIGHT

Push hard to
identify
“evidence-based”
turnaround
strategies and
and implement
those initiatives.
approaches at even greater scale. This means leveraging the
expertise
of key education
partners, including
Battelle for strategies
Kids,
2. Push
hard
to identify
“evidence-based”
turnaround
and implement those approaches at even
various
Education
Service
Centers,
colleges
of
education
and
others
whoeducation
have expertise

in implementing
greater scale. This means leveraging the expertise of key
partners,
including Battelle for Kids,
transformative
teaching,
leading,
instructional,
curricular
and
support
strategies.
various Education Service Centers, colleges of education and others who have expertise in implementing
teaching,innovation
leading, instructional,
curricular
support
3. transformative
Create a school improvement
fund, including Title
I dollars,and
whereby
schoolsstrategies.
receive grants and funding based on top-flight

educational
criteria, improvement
which is rooted in innovation
and informed by
the state’s

SIG evaluation
report currently
underway
at the
Ohio Department
3. Create
a school
fund,
including
Title I dollars,
whereby
schools
receive
grants and
of
Education.
The
development
of
this
fund
should
build
on
lessons
learned
from
Ohio
and
across

the
country,
including
the evaluation
significant
funding based on top-flight educational criteria, which is rooted in and informed by the state’s SIG
investments
of
Ohio’s
Straight
A
Fund.
report currently underway at the Ohio Department of Education. The development of this fund should build
lessons
learned from
Ohio and
across thebest
country,
including
the
significant
investments
of Ohio’s Straight A
4. on
Prioritize
interventions
and identify
and disseminate
practices
to that end.

The
Ohio Department
of
Fund.
Education must become a partner in helping local leaders, faculty and staff understand and consider options that demonstrate success
and support interventions
local turnaround efforts.
We know and
that one
size does not best
fit all. practices
We also know
schools
guidance
4. Prioritize
and identify
disseminate
to that
thatlocal
end.
The need
Ohioadditional
Department
of and
support
to
undertake
this
work
on

behalf
of
students.
Education must become a partner in helping local leaders, faculty and staff understand and consider options
demonstrate
success
and support local
turnaround
efforts.toWe
know
that by
one
not fitofall.
We also
5. that
Examine
and retool the
use of “transformation
specialists”
who are assigned
Priority
Schools
thesize
Ohiodoes
Department
Education.
know
that
local
schools

need
additional
guidance
and
support
to
undertake
this
work
on
behalf
of
students.
Often ODE is too focused on compliance and not enough on supporting and connecting schools to resources aimed at facilitating dramatic turnaround
for retool
our students.
Transformation
specialists should
be supported
andare
prepared
to fully
ESSA-related
evi5. Examine
and
the use
of “transformation
specialists”
who
assigned

to understand
Priority Schools
by the
dence-based
strategies of
andEducation.
equipped to help
principals
and
teachers
in Priority
Schools implement
those
strategies.
Ohio
Department
Often
ODE is
too
focused
on compliance
and not
enough
on supporting and
resources
aimed
facilitating
dramatic
for our students.
6. connecting

Report on the schools
impact ofto
Ohio’s
previous
school at
improvement
processes
andturnaround
Straight A investments.
The results Transformation
of these evaluations
specialists
should
be
supported
and
prepared
to
fully
understand
ESSA-related
evidence-based
strategies
should be used to drive state and local direction for leveraging ESSA flexibilities and maximizing its approach to deploying
funds. and
equipped to help principals and teachers in Priority Schools implement those strategies.
These steps will help put Ohio on a new path for turning around the state’s failing schools and ensuring

6.
Report on

themore
impact
of Ohio’s
school
improvement
processes and Straight A investments. The
opportunity
for the
than 370,000
Ohio previous
students enrolled
in those
schools.
results of these evaluations should be used to drive state and local direction for leveraging ESSA flexibilities
and maximizing its approach to deploying funds.
These steps will help put Ohio on a new path for turning around the state’s failing schools and ensuring
opportunity for the more than 370,000 Ohio students enrolled in those schools.

ENDNOTES
ENDNOTES
________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

MUCH
MONEY
HAS
BEENSPENT
SPENT ON
IMPROVEMENT
EFFORTS?

HOWHOW
MUCH
MONEY
HAS
BEEN
ONSCHOOL
SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT
EFFORTS?

F

ederal
that have
dedicated
to Ohio’s
ederalinvestments
investments
thatbeen
have
been dedicated
School
Improvement
(SIG) over Grants
the last eight
to Ohio’s
School Grants
Improvement
(SIG)

years total
as shown
in the
following
table.
over
the $266
last million,
eight years
total
$266
million,
as
shown
in tothe
table. the state received
In addition
SIGfollowing
and ARRA funding,

$558
million into
federal
funds infunding,
2015. It is expected
to
In
addition
SIG Title
andIARRA

the state
receive an estimated
$575 million
in 2016.
In spite
of these
received
$558 million
in federal
Title
I funds
major
investments,
it
is
unclear
if
Ohio’s
school
improvein 2015. It is expected to receive an estimated
ment approach
been successful.
As these
of August
2016,
$575
million has
in 2016.
In spite of
major

the
Ohio
Department
of
Education
has
not
finalized
investments, it is unclear if Ohio’s school and
released its evaluation
of SIG.has been successful.
improvement
approach
As of August 2016, the Ohio Department of
Education has not finalized and released its
evaluation of SIG.





Note:
Note: This
This brief
brief defines
defines “failing
“failing schools”
schools” as
as schools
schools whose

whose local
local report
report cards
cards consist
consist of
of Fs
Fs and
and Ds
Ds without
without any
any As
As and
and Bs.
Bs.
3
3 FSG Social Impact Advisors, The School Turnaround Field Guide (2010), accessed August 15, 2016,
FSG Social Impact Advisors, The School Turnaround Field Guide (2010), accessed August 15, 2016, />knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Turnaround-Field-Guide.pdf.
knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Turnaround-Field-Guide.pdf.

YearInvestment
Year
Investment
2009
2009

2010
2010
2011
2011
2012

2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2015
2016
2016



regular
$132M (includes $20M in regular
SIG
SIG funds and $112M in ARRA)
$20M
$21M
$20M
$20M
$19M
$18M
$16M

Mark Edmundson,
Edmundson, Why
Why read?
read? (New
(New York:
York: Bloomsbury,

Bloomsbury, 2004);
2004); E.D.
E.D. Hirsch,
Hirsch, The
The Making
Making of
of Americans
Americans (New
(New Haven:
Haven: Yale
Yale University
University Press,
Press, 2009).
2009).
Mark
Ohio
Department of
of Education,
Education, “Ohio
“Ohio School
School Report
Report Cards,”
Cards,” accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, /> />Ohio Department
default.aspx
default.aspx
1

1

2
2











Mike
Schmoker, Leading
Leading with
with Focus;
Focus; Elevating
Elevating the
the Essentials
Essentials for
for School
School and
and District
District Improvement
Improvement (2016).
(2016).
Mike Schmoker,

Kate
Taylor, “After
“After 2
2 Years,
Years, Progress
Progress Is
Is Hard
Hard to
to See
See in
in Some
Some Struggling
Struggling City
City Schools,”
Schools,” New
New York
York Times,
Times, July
July 19,
19, 2016,
2016, accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15,
Kate Taylor,
2016,
2016, /> />4
4
5
5

6
6 Ohio Department of Education, “Priority Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, o. gov/Topics/School-Improvement/
Ohio Department of Education, “Priority Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, o. gov/Topics/School-Improvement/
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Priority-Schools.
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Priority-Schools.
7
7 Ohio Department of Education, “Focus Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Ohio Department of Education, “Focus Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Focus-Schools.
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Focus-Schools.
8
8 Ohio Department of Education, “Watch Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Ohio Department of Education, “Watch Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, />Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Watch-Schools.
Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Watch-Schools.
9
9 Cleveland’s Plan for Transforming Schools, accessed August 15, 2016, />Cleveland’s Plan for Transforming Schools, accessed August 15, 2016, />Centricity/Domain/98/ClevelandPlanandLegislation.pdf.
Centricity/Domain/98/ClevelandPlanandLegislation.pdf.

Cincinnati Public
Public Schools,
Schools, “Elementary
“Elementary Initiative,”
Initiative,” accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, /> />Cincinnati
elementary-initiative.
elementary-initiative.
11
11 Sara Mead, Turning Around Low-Performing Schools (2012), accessed August 15, 2016, />Sara Mead, Turning Around Low-Performing Schools (2012), accessed August 15, 2016, />standleadershipcenter.org/files/media/Turn%20Arounds.pdf.
standleadershipcenter.org/files/media/Turn%20Arounds.pdf.

10
10

500 SouthStreet,
Front Street, Suite900
900
500 South
37 WestFront
Broad Street,Suite
Suite 800
Columbus,
43215-7628
Columbus,
OhioOhio
43215-4198
Columbus,
Ohio
43215-7628

ã 614.224.1344

614.224.1344

ã ã614.224.1344

www.philanthropyohio.org
www.philanthropyohio.org

www.philanthropyohio.org

Philanthropy
Ohio
2016
Philanthropy
Ohio
â â2016

Breakthrough Schools,
Schools, Annual
Annual Reports,
Reports, accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, /> />Breakthrough
Danette Parsley
Parsley &
& Rhonda
Rhonda Barton,
Barton, “School
“School Turnaround
Turnaround in
in the
the Rural
Rural Context,”
Context,” accessed
accessed August
August 15,
15, 2016,
2016, />

Danette
northwest-matters/school-turnaround-rural-context.
northwest-matters/school-turnaround-rural-context.

12
12
13
13

Lauren Camera,
Camera, “Rural
“Rural School
School Collaboratives:
Collaboratives: Key
Key to
to Success?”
Success?” U.S.
U.S. News
News &
& World
World Report,
Report, accessed
accessed August
August 16,
16, 2016,
2016,
Lauren
/> />
14
14

THE URGENCY
TURNING
AROUND
LOW-PERFORMING
SCHOOLS:
THE
URGENCYOFOF
TURNING
AROUND
LOW-PERFORMING
EVERY CHILD
DESERVES
A GREAT
EDUCATION
SCHOOLS:
EVERY
CHILD
DESERVES
A GREAT EDUCATION

P

hilanthropy
Ohio
stands
resolute
that eachthat
and every
hilanthropy

Ohio
stands
resolute
eachOhio
andstudent,
every
no
matter
his/her zip
deserves
Ohio
student,
no code,
matter
his/her

zip code, deserves
access toto
a high-performing
school that
is equipped
the best with
teachers,
access
a high-performing
school
that iswith
equipped
leaders,
instructional

strategies,
the best teachers, leaders, instructional strategies,
community engagement
effortsefforts
and wraparound
supports thatsupports
result
community
engagement
and wraparound
in
student
success.
The
research
is
decisive:
a
well-rounded
education
that result in student success. The research is decisive: a
has life-altering effects
on everyhas
aspect
of society, particularly
poor.
well-rounded
education
life-altering
effects ontheevery

New
evidence
from
the
Brookings
Institute
affirms
the
effects
of
a
aspect of society, particularly the poor. New evidencequality
education
individual incomes,
earnings,
social mobility,
health
from
theon
Brookings
Institutelifetime
affirms
the effects
of a quality
1
and
life
expectancy.
education on individual incomes, lifetime earnings, social
1

mobility,
health
and life
expectancy.
Despite all of
the evidence
pointing
to the importance of a high-quality
education,all
Ohio
to be challenged
high importance
number of schools
Despite
ofcontinues
the evidence
pointingbytoa the
of
that
fall
short
of
meeting
the
education
needs
of
their
students.
Of the

a high-quality education, Ohio continues to be challenged
state’s
more number
than 3,400 of
schools,
about
820 fall
(25 percent)
struggle
with the
by
a high
schools
that
short of
meeting
2
low
performance.
More
than
370,000
students
are
currently
enrolled
in
education needs of their students. Of the state’s more than
those
schools.

Most
serve
students
in
urban,
high-poverty
communities.
3,400 schools, about 820 (25 percent) struggle with low
2 category of schools is emerging across Ohio’s cities
Another troubling
More than 370,000 students are currently
performance.
and
suburbs:
those
that
receive passing
grades students
on their local
cards,
enrolled in those
schools.
Most serve
inreport
urban,
but,
upon
closer
examination,
face

continued
achievement
gaps
among
high-poverty communities. Another troubling category of
student subgroups.
And, across
high-poverty,
rural
school
districts,
whichthose
dot
schools
is emerging
Ohio’s
cities
and
suburbs:
the
state’s
landscape
and
serve
more
than
170,000
students,
face
their

own
that receive passing grades on their local report cards, but,
unique
sets
of
challenges.
Philanthropy
Ohio
believes
it
is
unacceptable
to
upon closer examination, face continued achievement gaps
deny
any
student,
whether
in
an
urban,
suburban
or
rural
school
setting,
among student subgroups. And, high-poverty, rural school
access to a high-quality
Doing
so strips students

of themore
keys
districts,
which doteducation.
the state’s
landscape
and serve
they
need
to
unlock
their
future
economic
opportunities
that
are
all
but
than 170,000 students, face their own unique sets of chalguaranteed
with
the
right
education
opportunities.
lenges. Philanthropy Ohio believes it is unacceptable to
deny any student, whether in an urban, suburban or rural
school setting, access to a high-quality education. Doing so
strips students of the keys they need to unlock their future
economic opportunities that are all but guaranteed with

the right education opportunities.

Ohio’s education
leaders
have been
attempting,
with little success,
turn
Ohio’s
education
leaders
have
been attempting,
with to
little
around
the
state’s
lowest
performing
schools
for
nearly
14
years,
since
success, to turn around the state’s lowest performing the
passage offor
the nearly
No Child14

Left
Behind
Act (NCLB)
in 2002. of
Yet,the
more
than a
schools
years,
since
the passage
No
decade
later,
370,000
students
still
remain
trapped
in
inadequate
learning
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002. Yet, more than
It is370,000
time for education
to stop, take
stock, pool
aenvironments.
decade later,
studentsleaders

still remain
trapped
in
resources
and
supports
and
determine
a
more
effective
path
inadequate learning environments. It is time for forward.
education
leaders
to stop,
take success
stock, has
pool
resources
supports
While school
turnaround
been
somewhatand
fleeting
over the last
and
determine
more

effective
path forward.
decade,
we have at aleast
learned
some important
lessons, which, based

upon theschool
evidence,
must anchor success
our path forward:
While
turnaround
has been somewhat
fleeting
the last
decade,
we have at
least
learned
some
• School over
leadership
and teacher
effectiveness
stand
as the
most critical
important

which,
upon
the evidence,
factors for lessons,
school success.
Thisbased
is why we
dedicated
Brief #1 to must
the
anchor
ourcannot
path turn
forward:
topic. You
around a school without a top-flight leader and

effective teachers.
• School
leadership and teacher effectiveness stand as the
factors for school
success.
This
why we
• most
Schoolcritical
boards, superintendents
and union
leaders
areis

integral
to
dedicated
Briefturnaround
#1 to theefforts.
topic.These
Youleaders
cannot
turn
around
a
successful school
must
have
an
school
without
a top-flight
leader aand
aligned vision
and jointly
agree to support
plan effective
for turning teachers.
around a
3
school building.
• School
boards,
superintendents and union leaders are

integral
to
successful
school
turnaround
efforts. These
• High quality curriculum and
instruction
are also key
leaders
must
have
an
aligned
vision
and
jointly
to
ingredients, and these are dependent upon effective schoolagree
leadership
3
4 turning around a school building.
and
support
a
plan
for
and rigorous expectations.

•

quality curriculum
and instruction
are also key
• High
A sense-of-urgency
must be balanced
with perseverance
ingredients,
and
these
are
dependent
upon
and an eye toward the long game. There is no evidenceeffective
of a school
4
school
leadership
expectations.
improvement
initiativeand
in therigorous
country that
has demonstrated long-term

success
and showed
•A
sense-of-urgency
must be balanced with perseverance

5
improvement
twothe
or three
Lasting
and
an eye within
toward
longyears.
game.
Thereschool
is noimprovement
evidence
takes
time, resources,
leadership,initiative in the country that
of
a school
improvement
community
support and
buy-in.
has
demonstrated
long-term
success and showed
school
improvement
within
two

or
three
years.5 Lasting
• School governance, operations and fiscal management
all play
into the
improvement
takes
time,
resources,
leadership,
success of turning around a lowcommunity
support
andbe
buy-in.
performing school
and cannot
ignored.

• School governance, operations and fiscal management
all play into the success of turning around a lowperforming school and cannot be ignored.