Blog Post

By: Marin Christensen

Note: The opinions expressed are those of the author alone and do not reflect an institutional position of the Gardner Institute. We hope the opinions shared contribute to the marketplace of ideas and help people as they formulate their own INFORMED DECISIONS™.

The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute has had the pleasure to contract with the Utah State Board of Education to conduct qualitative research uncovering common factors of success from the first cohort of schools that exited the Utah School Turnaround Program.

The Utah School Turnaround and Leadership Development Act was passed by the Utah Legislature in 2015 with the aim of identifying and providing outside resources to Utah’s lowest-performing three percent of schools. Schools were identified to start the program in the fall of 2015.

To “exit” the turnaround program, schools identified in 2015 were required to improve their grade by at least one letter after the three-year turnaround period. The Turnaround Program provides each school an independent, state-approved turnaround consultant to customize an improvement plan and provide training and support to leadership and staff.

The Gardner Institute conducted in-depth interviews with each schools’ superintendent, any principal present during the process, a sample of teachers present for the entire process, the turnaround consultant, and the school board chair. This resulted in 70 conversations where clear factors of success, as well as concerns for sustainability, were identified.

Statute has changed since the first cohort to require two years of school performance data instead of one. As a result, the number of schools eligible for turnaround designation in cohort two was drastically reduced from 26 to 5. Studying successful schools in the first cohort allowed for a larger sample size from which to pull common factors that led to a successful exit. Main themes are listed below and the full report can be found here.

Reported Factors of Success

• Diving into the data: Schools adopted the practice of tracking students’ scores on both a micro and macro level, which helped highlight specific gaps and allowed teachers to maximize effective use of time in the classroom.
• Strong leadership: If the principal or director wasn’t on board and supportive throughout the process, successful implementation of the proven practices would not have been possible.
• Positive reinforcement: Celebrating accomplishments rather than punitive approaches had a transformative effect for both teachers and students.
• Buy-in: District and school leadership, teachers, students, and parents had to believe that improvement was possible and accept the challenge to meet the goal.
• Collaboration: Instead of silo’s, teachers learned to work together to ensure each student is adequately prepared for their next step.
• Additional resources: Schools in turnaround benefitted from additional expertise, aides and tutors, training, and funds.

Key Concerns

• Sustainability: Success was dependent on leadership with a mission, staff willing to adapt, and extra resources. Without all three, there is worry success won’t be sustained and the hard work will be for naught.
• Teachers time: Turnaround required extra time and effort from teachers already feeling overworked. It proved overwhelming to some who left for other jobs without the extra requirements.
• Consultant value: Schools felt if the money used to hire the consultant company was instead given to the schools, they could have been able to afford the necessary resources to improve within the given time frame.

Marin Christensen is a research associate at the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.