School Turnaround in Ten Schools in Germany: School Leadership and Coordinated System Efforts as a Key to School Development

Author(s):

Guri Skedsmo(presenting / submitting)Stephan Gerhard Huber(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

26. Educational Leadership

Format:

Paper

Session Information

26 SES 03 B, Educational Leadership in Challenging Educational Contexts

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-22

17:15-18:45

Room:

K1.02 Auditorium 2

Chair:

David Gurr

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 of this city and the 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 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” (cf.), 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; Author, 2012a,b). 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 (Racherbäumer et al., 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, four 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. In order to draw conclusions about the schools’ development with respect to certain aspects, the surveys are also sent out to additional ten schools which represent a control group. These schools are located in the same community and have similar characteristics. Both the project schools and the control group schools are registered in the same “early warning system”. This paper presents findings from the first four years of the project. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is used as analytic technique to test out latent variables and investigate relationships between latent variables and school characteristics. Growth models are applied to explore changes over time where different types of intervention (e.g. coaching of school leaders, staff development, support of implementation of new teaching concepts etc. ), resources and various output variables (e.g. student outcomes on standardised tests, the number of lesson drop out, student absence and completion rates) are included. 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.

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary findings from the quantitative analysis indicates 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. In all schools, however, there is a group of staff who perceives the quality of their work as good, they share a common ground for their work, 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” to “we need more differentiated teaching approaches for this heterogeneous group of students”. During the three first project years most of the school leaders have concentrated on changing the school structure and communication processes with staff. With this as a basis, they focus on other areas such as improving teaching and learning. In general, a well-functioning and strategic school leadership is a main key for improvement. In all schools, except one, there has been a change of principals, either right before start of the project or during the second and third project year. Yet, evidence shows that it is highly problematic for schools to do a “turnaround” on their own. Cooperation with local authorities and coordinated system efforts are needed in order for the schools to improve in a sustainable way. This paper contributes to the existing knowledge base on school development and approaches to school turnaround. Findings are discussed in relation to previous research with a particular focus on school turnaround in the English and the US context.

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 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

Guri Skedsmo (presenting / submitting)

University of Teacher Education Zug

Stephan Gerhard Huber (presenting)