Policy Brief 4 - School Improvement and Turnaround

2 Ohio Department of Education, “Ohio School Report Cards,” accessed August 15, 2016, http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/ default.aspx Note: This brief defines “failing schools”

Trang 1

Philanthropy Ohio stands resolute that each and every

Ohio student, no matter his/her zip code, deserves access to a high-performing school that is equipped with the best teachers, leaders, instructional strategies, community engagement efforts and wraparound supports that result in student success The research is decisive: a well-rounded education has life-altering effects on every aspect of society, particularly the poor New evidence from the Brookings Institute affirms the effects of a quality education on individual incomes, lifetime earnings, social mobility, health and life expectancy 1

Despite all of the evidence pointing to the importance of

a high-quality education, Ohio continues to be challenged

by a high number of schools that fall short of meeting the education needs of their students Of the state’s more than 3,400 schools, about 820 (25 percent) struggle with low performance.2 More than 370,000 students are currently enrolled in those schools Most serve students in urban, high-poverty communities Another troubling category of schools is emerging across Ohio’s cities and suburbs: those that receive passing grades on their local report cards, but, upon closer examination, face continued achievement gaps among student subgroups And, high-poverty, rural school districts, which dot the state’s landscape and serve more than 170,000 students, face their own unique sets of chal-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, to turn around the state’s lowest performing schools for nearly 14 years, since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 Yet, more than

a decade later, 370,000 students still remain trapped in inadequate learning environments It is time for education leaders to stop, take stock, pool resources and supports and determine a more effective path forward

While school turnaround success has been somewhat fleeting over the last decade, we have at least learned some important lessons, which, based upon the evidence, must anchor our path forward:

• School leadership and teacher effectiveness stand as the

most critical factors for school success This is why we dedicated Brief #1 to the topic You cannot turn around a school without a top-flight leader and effective teachers

• School boards, superintendents and union leaders are

integral to successful school turnaround efforts These leaders must have an aligned vision and jointly agree to and support a plan for turning around a school building.3

• High quality curriculum and instruction are also key

ingredients, and these are dependent upon effective school leadership and rigorous expectations.4

• A sense-of-urgency must be balanced with perseverance

and an eye toward the long game There is no evidence

of a school improvement initiative in the country that has demonstrated long-term success and showed improvement within two or three years.5Lasting school improvement takes time, resources, leadership,

community support and buy-in

• School governance, operations and fiscal management

all play into the success of turning around a low-performing school and cannot be ignored

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

Policy Brief #4: School Improvement and Turnaround

37 West Broad Street, Suite 800 Columbus, Ohio 43215-4198 info@philanthropyohio.org • 614.224.1344

www.philanthropyohio.org

500 South Front Street, Suite 900 Columbus, Ohio 43215-7628 info@philanthropyohio.org • 614.224.1344

ENDNOTES _

1 Mark Edmundson, Why read? (New York: Bloomsbury, 2004); E.D Hirsch, The Making of Americans (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).

2 Ohio Department of Education, “Ohio School Report Cards,” accessed August 15, 2016, http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/

default.aspx Note: This brief defines “failing schools” as schools whose local report cards consist of Fs and Ds without any As and Bs.

3 FSG Social Impact Advisors, The School Turnaround Field Guide (2010), accessed August 15, 2016, http://www.wallacefoundation.org/

knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Turnaround-Field-Guide.pdf.

4Mike Schmoker, Leading with Focus; Elevating the Essentials for School and District Improvement (2016).

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

2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/nyregion/after-2-years-progress-is-hard-to-see-in-some-struggling-city-schools.html.

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

Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Priority-Schools.

7 Ohio Department of Education, “Focus Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/School-Improvement/

Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Focus-Schools.

8 Ohio Department of Education, “Watch Schools,” accessed August 15, 2016, http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/School-Improvement/

Federal-Programs/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act/ESEA-Support-Schools-and-Districts/Watch-Schools.

9 Cleveland’s Plan for Transforming Schools, accessed August 15, 2016, http://clevelandmetroschools.org/cms/lib05/OH01915844/

Centricity/Domain/98/ClevelandPlanandLegislation.pdf.

10 Cincinnati Public Schools, “Elementary Initiative,” accessed August 15, 2016, http://www.cps-k12.org/about-cps/district-initiatives/

elementary-initiative.

11 Sara Mead, Turning Around Low-Performing Schools (2012), accessed August 15, 2016, http://standleadershipcenter.org/sites/

standleadershipcenter.org/files/media/Turn%20Arounds.pdf.

12 Breakthrough Schools, “Annual Reports,” accessed August 15, 2016, http://breakthroughschools.org/resources/annual-reports.

13 Danette Parsley & Rhonda Barton, “School Turnaround in the Rural Context,” accessed August 15, 2016, http://educationnorthwest.org/

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

14 Lauren Camera, “Rural School Collaboratives: Key to Success?” U.S News & World Report, accessed August 16, 2016, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/rural-school-collaboratives-key-to-success.

With more than 370,000 of Ohio’s students affected by inadequate learning environments, time is of the

essence Ohio must continue to advance school improvement efforts and capitalize on flexibility ushered in

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

1 Build a pipeline of effective teachers and leaders who are ready to step into the state’s lowest performing

schools and turn them around, whether traditionally prepared or alternatively trained Great teachers and

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

2 Push hard to identify “evidence-based” turnaround strategies and implement those approaches at even

greater scale This means leveraging the expertise of key education partners, including Battelle for Kids,

various Education Service Centers, colleges of education and others who have expertise in implementing transformative teaching, leading, instructional, curricular and support strategies

3 Create a school improvement innovation fund, including Title I dollars, whereby schools receive grants and

funding based on top-flight educational criteria, which is rooted in and informed by the state’s SIG evaluation report currently underway at the Ohio Department of Education The development of this fund should build

on lessons learned from Ohio and across the country, including the significant investments of Ohio’s Straight A Fund

4 Prioritize interventions and identify and disseminate best practices to that end The Ohio Department of

Education must become a partner in helping local leaders, faculty and staff understand and consider options that demonstrate success and support local turnaround efforts We know that one size does not fit all We also know that local schools need additional guidance and support to undertake this work on behalf of students

5 Examine and retool the use of “transformation specialists” who are assigned to Priority Schools by the

Ohio Department of Education Often ODE is too focused on compliance and not enough on supporting and connecting schools to resources aimed at facilitating dramatic turnaround for our students Transformation specialists should be supported and prepared to fully understand ESSA-related evidence-based strategies and equipped to help principals and teachers in Priority Schools implement those strategies

6 Report on the impact of Ohio’s previous school improvement processes and Straight A investments The

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

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD

Figure 1 – Ohio Improvement Process

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.

STAGE 0 Prepare for the OIP.

OHIO 5-STEP PROCESS

The Ohio 5-Step Process

STEP 1 Collect and chart data.

STEP 2 Analyze data.

STEP 3 Establish shared expectations for implementing STEP 4

Implement changes consistently.

STEP 5 Collect, chart, and analyze post data

Implement strategies and action steps to achieve district goals.

implementation and adult practice and student learning.

How do these teams and schools?

Review data.

Gather evidence of

implementation and

impact.

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

Use data to identify

critical needs.

Abstract

This guide is intended for districts and buildings implementing the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP)

It is designed to provide the key basics, need-to-know information, tools, and adaptable resources

for each stage of the OIP A large part of the guide is organized by working agendas with relevant

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

The Ohio Improvement Process

To see the full-size visual, click here.

Federal investments that have been dedicated

to Ohio’s School Improvement Grants (SIG)

over the last eight years total $266 million, as

shown in the following table

In addition to SIG and ARRA funding, the state

received $558 million in federal Title I funds

in 2015 It is expected to receive an estimated

$575 million in 2016 In spite of these major

investments, it is unclear if Ohio’s school

improvement approach has been successful

As of August 2016, the Ohio Department of

Education has not finalized and released its

evaluation of SIG

Year Investment

SIG funds and $112M in ARRA)

HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS?

OHIO’S IMPROVEMENT PROCESS

School 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

schools are high performing All Priority Schools are required to implement the OIP.

Philanthropy Ohio stands resolute that each and every Ohio student,

no matter his/her zip code, deserves access to a high-performing school that is equipped with the best teachers, leaders, instructional strategies,

community engagement efforts and wraparound supports that result

in student success The research is decisive: a well-rounded education has life-altering effects on every aspect of society, particularly the poor

New evidence from the Brookings Institute affirms the effects of a quality education on individual incomes, lifetime earnings, social mobility, health and life expectancy 1

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

Another troubling category of schools is emerging across Ohio’s cities and suburbs: those that receive passing grades on their local report cards, but, upon closer examination, face continued achievement gaps among student subgroups And, high-poverty, rural school districts, which dot the state’s landscape and serve more than 170,000 students, face their own unique sets of challenges 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, to turn around the state’s lowest performing schools for nearly 14 years, since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 Yet, more than a decade later, 370,000 students still remain trapped in inadequate learning environments It is time for education leaders to stop, take stock, pool resources and supports and determine a more effective path forward

• School leadership and teacher effectiveness stand as the most critical

factors for school success This is why we dedicated Brief #1 to the topic You cannot turn around a school without a top-flight leader and effective teachers

• School boards, superintendents and union leaders are integral to

successful school turnaround efforts These leaders must have an aligned vision and jointly agree to support a plan for turning around a school building 3

and an eye toward the long game There is no evidence of a school improvement initiative in the country that has demonstrated long-term success and showed

improvement within two or three years 5 Lasting school improvement takes time, resources, leadership,

• School governance, operations and fiscal management all play into the

success of turning around a low- performing school and cannot be ignored

ENDNOTES

2 Ohio Department of Education, “Ohio School Report Cards,” accessed August 15, 2016, http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages default.aspx

Note: This brief defines “failing schools” as schools whose local report cards consist of Fs and Ds without any As and Bs.

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

14 Lauren Camera, “Rural School Collaboratives: Key to Success?” U.S News & World Report, accessed August 16, 2016, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/rural-school-collaboratives-key-to-success

essence Ohio must continue to advance school improvement efforts and capitalize on flexibility ushered in by ESSA To that end, Philanthropy Ohio urges Ohio’s leaders and stakeholders to:

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

whether traditionally prepared or alternatively trained Great teachers and strong leaders matter The state must examine the effectiveness and retention rates of educator preparation programs and alternative programs operating in the state, including Woodrow Wilson, Teach for America and BRIGHT Ohio, and, if worthy, continue to support and expand such initiatives

2 Push hard to identify “evidence-based” turnaround strategies and implement those approaches at even greater scale This means

lever-aging the expertise of key education partners, including Battelle for Kids, various Education Service Centers, colleges of education and others who have expertise in implementing transformative teaching, leading, instructional, curricular and support strategies

3 Create a school improvement innovation fund, including Title I dollars, whereby schools receive grants and funding based on top-flight

educational criteria, which is rooted in and informed by the state’s SIG evaluation report currently underway at the Ohio Department

of Education The development of this fund should build on lessons learned from Ohio and across the country, including the significant investments of Ohio’s Straight A Fund

Education must become a partner in helping local leaders, faculty and staff understand and consider options that demonstrate success and support local turnaround efforts We know that one size does not fit all We also know that local schools need additional guidance and support to undertake this work on behalf of students.

5 Examine and retool the use of “transformation specialists” who are assigned to Priority Schools by the Ohio Department of Education

Often ODE is too focused on compliance and not enough on supporting and connecting schools to resources aimed at facilitating

dramat-ic turnaround for our students Transformation specialists should be supported and prepared to fully understand ESSA-related evi-dence-based strategies and equipped to help principals and teachers in Priority Schools implement those strategies

6 Report on the impact of Ohio’s previous school improvement processes and Straight A investments The 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.

Federal investments that have been dedicated to Ohio’s

School Improvement Grants (SIG) over the last eight

years total $266 million, as shown in the following table

In addition to SIG and ARRA funding, the state received

$558 million in federal Title I funds in 2015 It is expected to

receive an estimated $575 million in 2016 In spite of these

major investments, it is unclear if Ohio’s school

improve-ment approach has been successful As of August 2016,

the Ohio Department of Education has not finalized and

released its evaluation of SIG

Year Investment

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

• Building Leadership Teams (BLTs)

• Teacher-Based Teams (TBTs)

Trang 2

Under 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

Moving 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 lowest- performing 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

• 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

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

WHAT TURNAROUND AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES ARE MOVING THE NEEDLE?

OHIO’S CURRENT SCHOOL

IMPROVEMENT APPROACH

A WORD ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS

In 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

ESSAincludes 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

Philanthropy 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

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

THE CHALLENGE OF RURAL SCHOOL TURNAROUND

School 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

Trang 3

other things;

for students;

the principal

on their own.12

Trang 4

other things;

for students;

the principal

on their own.12

Trang 5

ENDNOTES _

STAGE 2

OHIO 5-STEP PROCESS

Review data.

Gather evidence of

implementation and

impact.

critical needs.

Abstract

Year Investment

ENDNOTES

Year Investment

Trang 6

ENDNOTES _

STAGE 2

OHIO 5-STEP PROCESS

Review data.

Gather evidence of

implementation and

impact.

critical needs.

Abstract

Year Investment

ENDNOTES

Year Investment

Định dạng
Số trang	6
Dung lượng	2,15 MB