School Turnaround in Ten Schools in Germany: Successful Factors and Obstacles to School Development

Author(s):

Stephan Gerhard Huber(presenting / submitting)Guri Skedsmo

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance

Format:

Paper

Session Information

11 SES 06 A, Paper Session

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

15:30-17:00

Room:

OB-E2.14

Chair:

Jan Van Damme

Contribution

This paper explores school development processes in ten schools in difficult circumstances in a large city in Germany. All the schools take part in a school turnaround project initiated as a public-private partnership between the school authority and a well-established private foundation. In particular, the paper focuses on identifying factors of success and elements which seem to hinder development in the ten participating schools as well as in the overall project organisation. The analysis is based on interviews and survey data from teachers, school leaders and support staff as well as interviews with further key actors in the city. Findings show that well-functioning school leadership is a key for improvement in those schools while problems among staff and strong unwillingness to change may hinder development. The paper also provides examples of limitations of school turnaround models from other countries such as England and the US implemented – even in an adapted way – in a German education context.

The paper draws on several lines of literature. First, it builds on research on school effectiveness, which since the 1970’s has focused on the influence of various school related factors on student academic outcomes. During the last decade increasing attention has been paid towards schools which in the English speaking context are defined as “ineffective”, “in decline”, “failing” or “low” – or “underperforming”, and “schools in challenging circumstances”, which also includes a focus on the school context in terms of low SES, high degree of migration etc., which often appear in combination with dysfunctional characteristics of the school organisation (e.g. Baumert, Stanat & Watermann, 2006; Murphy & Meyers, 2008; Huber 2013). Second, the paper builds on research on school improvement and change with a particular focus on “School Turnaround”, which can be seen as an educational policy initiative aiming to change and improve the performance of those schools. A key finding is that the improvement initiatives have to be differentiated and adapted to the needs and challenges of the individual schools (e.g. Reynolds et al, 1996). With regard to the selection of strategies, different concerns have to be addressed, such as decisions on the number and size of prioritized areas, where to set the focus, the use of data, and assessments related to the capacity of the school to change as well as the degree of external support needed. Different models for “School Turnaround” have been tried out in the US and in England. While some models include radical approaches such as school closure and retention of staff, others concentrate on professional development (e.g. courses, peer-teaching, coaching) focusing on improving the quality of teaching and school management, establishing cooperation or even initiating school fusion between a “failing” school and a school characterised as “successful”, and improving the coordination between the school and the local authorities. The last type of model is more evident in the German speaking context (Huber, 2013; Racherbäumer, Funke & van Ackeren, 2013).

Method

This five year project draws on a mixed methods and longitudinal design which includes document analysis, semi-structured interviews with actors in the participating schools and the school governing system as well as actors involved in improvement initiatives and the support of the schools, and project stakeholders. Moreover, surveys are conducted among teachers and school leaders every 18 months, three during the project and the last one after the end of the project. This paper presents findings from the first two years of the project. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is used as analytic technique to test out latent variables and investigate relationships between latent variables, school characteristics and student outcomes on standardized tests. Moreover, Latent Class Analysis (LCA) is used to identify subcultures across the school populations. The qualitative analysis focuses on creating meanings and structures of organizational realities seen from multiple perspectives in the school system (Connelly et al, 1999). It is taken into account that the different stories are positioned and presented from the perspective of individuals and groups of actors with certain intentions at a specific moment in time, and that the stories probably are influenced by expectations about who is considered to be in the audience (Eisenhart, 2000). A focus on stories is emphasised because they can take on ritual status tied to mythic foundations, and they illustrate what is perceived to be possible and valuable. They can also be used to establish a picture of the past as a guide to organizational change, but also to organizational conservatism and maintenance. Data sources include survey data collected among teachers and school leaders in the project schools in year 1 (N=244, response rate: 54%) and 2 (N=198 , response rate: 37%). Moreover, data from two rounds of interviews are analysed, the first round conducted in year 1, and the second beginning of year 3. Both rounds comprise 90 interviews with school leaders, teachers, support staff, students and parents (altogether 180 interviews). Each round also includes interviews with project stakeholders; the project leaders, local authorities, representatives from the school authority and the Foundation.

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary findings from quantitative analysis indicate mainly two different subcultures in the schools, one of them being characterised by negative tensions among the staff, lack of consensus about the core tasks of the school and new directions for the school, an attitude of devaluing each other’s work which connects to dissatisfaction with the work situation and low capacity to deal with work pressure (Huber et al. 2014). On the other hand, in all the schools there is a group of staff who perceives the quality of their work as good, they share a common ground for their work with other colleagues, and they have a high degree of work satisfaction. The analysis of the interview data shows different perceptions of the problems of the schools and how to solve them, from e.g. “we need other types of students”, “the school reputation is the problem” to “we need more differentiated teaching approaches for this heterogeneous group of students”. In general, the unwillingness to change seems to be a major obstacle for school development and well-functioning school leadership is a main key for improvement. Moreover, there are common pattern across different actors’ perspectives. For instance, the start of the project is perceived as problematic in terms of the negative associations with “school turnaround”, lack of communication and opportunity for participation from the schools, lack of time to prepare for the project, agree on aims and terms and involve staff (Huber & Skedsmo 2015). At the same time many of the actors see the project as a “push” for the school into the right direction or a ”wake-up call”. During the first two years of the project, there is however, evidence that the schools can benefit from solving coordination problems in their local school governing system, e.g. hiring of new staff, renovation of school buildings, lack of resources).

References

Baumert, J., Stanat, P. & Watermann, R. (2006): Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im Bildungswesen. Vertiefende Analysen im Rahmen von PISA 2000. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Connelly, F.M., Clandinin, D.J. & Applebaum, S.D. (Eds) (1999): Shaping a Professional Identity: stories of educational practice. London: Teachers College Press. Eisenhart, M. (2000): Boundaries and Selves in the Making of ‘Science’, Research in Science Education, 30(1), 43-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02461652 Huber, S.G. & Skedsmo, G. (2015): 2. Zwischenbericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung zum Projekt “School Turnaround”. Robert Bosch Stiftung. Huber, S.G., Skedsmo, G. & Pohl, C. (2014): 1. Zwischenbericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung zum Projekt “School Turnaround”. Robert Bosch Stiftung. Huber, S.G. (2013): Perspektiven für Schulen in kritischer Lage. Expertise. Robert Bosch Stiftung Huber, S.G. & Muijs, D. (2011). Was sind „Failing Schools“? Arbeit mit besonders belasteten Schulen am Beispiel England. In A. Bartz, A., Dammann, M., Huber, S.G., Klieme, T., Kloft, C. & Schreiner, M. (Ed./Hrsg.), PraxisWissen SchulLeitung (21.12). München: Wolters Kluwer. Huber Reynolds, D., Bollen, R., Creemers, B., Hopkins, D., Stoll, L. & Lagerwej, N. (1996): Making Good Schools: Linking School Effectiveness and Improvement. London: Routledge/ Falmer. Murphy & Meyers, (2008): Turning Around Failing Schools: Leadership Lessons From the Organizational Sciences. Thousands Oak, California: Corwin Press. Racherbäumer, K./Funke, C./Ackeren, I. van/Clausen, M. (2013): Datennutzung und Schulleitungshandeln an Schulen in weniger begünstigter Lage. Empirische Befunde zu ausgewählten Aspekten der Qualitätsentwicklung. In: Die Deutsche Schule 13, Beiheft 12, S. 226-254. Münster: Waxmann.

Author Information

Stephan Gerhard Huber (presenting / submitting)

University of Teacher Education Zug, Switzerland

Guri Skedsmo