ENI’s Turnaround & Transformation Model INTRODUCTION Since 1973, Evans Newton Incorporated (ENI) has partnered with educational agencies to provide custom educational solutions that improve student achievement. Designed in 1988, the TargetTeach* Five-Step Process has been continually adapted to the instructional innovations and performance requirements of the U.S. educational system. Today the theoretical and empirical bases of the TargetTeach design are established by independent research and program evaluations that demonstrate its capability to provide the support that schools need as they struggle to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). These evaluations and research verify that TargetTeach negates the socioeconomic and subgroup challenges that schools face in making AYP. THEORETICAL BASE OF ENI’S TURNAROUND & TRANSFORMATION MODEL The TargetTeach Five-Step Process is a design-based intervention program built upon “a „logic model‟ that describes the „theory of action‟” that determines each implementation (Rowan, Correnti, Miller, & Camburn 2009):

TargetTeach Five Step Process

instructional practice

instructional leadership

student achievement

TargetTeach focuses on both the short-term and long-term results that ENI customers seek as outcomes of their school reform endeavors. A school‟s instructional leadership interrelates with its patterns of instructional practice to comprise a system of transformation, as indicated by the two-directional arrows.
*

TargetTeach® is a registered trademark of Evans Newton Incorporated for its school improvement model comprising proprietary products and professional services to align curricula to state and local standards, fill gaps in instructional sequences, implement benchmark testing to guide instruction, and deliver professional development at all levels and monitoring tools for data-driven decision-making.

© Copyright 2010 Evans Newton Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Page 1 of 12

ENI designs each TargetTeach implementation to affect positive change in schools‟ instructional management and in their patterns of instructional practice. TargetTeach promotes teachers‟ use of best instructional practices through comprehensive professional development and coaching and improves schools‟ approaches to managing and supporting instruction. Typical implementation of TargetTeach follows a three-stage approach to integrate the process in a school system. Stage I – Triage and Adaptation School systems typically engage ENI initially to support schools that are underachieving. ENI‟s triage approach will focus on specific schools, grades, and/or subject areas and adapt the TargetTeach implementation to correspond with materials previously adopted by the school. The work in schools begins with a comprehensive needs assessment that includes, but is not limited to, document review, observation in schools, and the rigorous analysis of at least three years of historical student achievement data – all for an understanding of root cause. To ensure mastery of standards as measured by state testing, teachers must have effective planning and pacing documents to chunk out blocks of instructional time, allot time for assessing and reteaching, and to efficiently differentiate instruction for diverse learners. ENI provides aligned curriculum maps or pacing guides, or reviews and potentially modifies existing district pacing guides. Heidi Hayes Jacobs (2004) provides a method for implementing and institutionalizing curriculum mapping to realize improvement in student performance in targeted areas and to ensure continuous curriculum and assessment review and improvement. From Appalachia Educational Laboratory at Edvantia (2005), ENI has received helpful guidance on aligning standards to textbooks, lessons, and assessments, aligning instruction and assessments, aligning state standards and the enacted curriculum, and aligning curriculum through professional development. Other Stage I deliverables may include standards-aligned formative assessment instruments as well as classroom materials for grade-level instruction and for reteaching of prerequisite concepts and skills. ENI‟s designs for these proprietary classroom materials are based on methodologies of effective instruction from these major educational theorists: David P. Ausubel (1967), Benjamin S. Bloom and David R. Krathwohl (1956), Fenwick W. English (1999), Howard Gardner (2006), Madeline C. Hunter (1982), Robert J. Marzano (1988), and Robert J. Marzano, Debra Pickering, and Jane E. Pollock (2001). An ongoing ENI initiative is to base all deliverables on the assumptions of Universal Design for Learning from the insights of, for instance, Tracey Hall, Nicole Strangman, and Anne Meyer (2003). Also implemented in Stage I is the ENI-developed coach training program, which incorporates the Cognitive Coaching process conceived by Arthur Costa and Robert Garmston (1994). Building from their principles and adding strategies proven through extensive ENI coaching engagements, ENI helps coaches become expert in observing and mentoring teachers in the principles of effective standards-based, aligned instruction, driving instruction through effective use of data, and differentiating instruction to individual needs. ENI also offers research-grounded coaching of principals as advocated by Dara Barlin (2010). We find that the more tools, training, and guidance that our in-building consultants provide to principals for increasing their

© Copyright 2010 Evans Newton Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Page 2 of 12

effectiveness in conducting classroom observations and deepening their knowledge about strategy options for transforming schools, the more natural the principals find it to transform themselves from a management/operations role to the role of instructional leader. TargetTeach professional development tactics include support for curriculum, instructional process and curriculum alignment, and ongoing assessment of student learning. The program teaches school staff to use formative assessments for data-driven instruction, including analysis of student score data to identify whole group, small group, and individual learning needs. ENI‟s professional development program provides powerful tools and strategies that help teachers learn to address learning objectives that make the greatest impact. This data-driven process, informed by the work of Allison Zmuda, Robert Kuklis, and Everett Klin (2004), effects change and improves how teachers conduct their daily instruction. ENI raise to ever higher levels of importance the use of data analysis as a means of implementing the school community‟s vision of what the school will look like when that community‟s core beliefs are actualized. The final key to Stage I success is ENI‟s support for school and district professional learning communities (PLCs), which build capacity and enhance teacher, principal, and leadership team effectiveness. Richard DuFour (2004) identifies the three critical decisions on which PLCs must reach agreement: what each student should learn, what that learning looks like, and what the responses should be when a student is not learning it. And Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (1991) delineate step-by-step instructions for sustainable “communities of practice” evolving out of PLCs. Stage II – Refocus Stage II typically requires two to three years to complete, during which time the implementation will expand to additional schools and/or include additional grades, subjects, and/or courses, founded on the theorists cited under Stage I, above. ENI transfers its initial training of the TargetTeach Five-Step Process to the agency‟s staff development trainers to provide the sessions for large-group inservice sessions. This is the first step in building an education agency‟s capacity to sustain the TargetTeach process. Professional services delivered within a typical TargetTeach implementation assist schools in optimizing their organizational structure to increase their capacity to improve student engagement and learning. The theoretical basis of ENI‟s systemic school turnaround process is Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010), which identifies the set of practices and conditions that are key factors for school improvement, including school leadership, the professional capacity of the faculty and staff, and a student-centered learning climate. ENI delivers a systemic school turnaround process wherein the TargetTeach professional services optimize schools‟ capacity to improve student engagement and learning. Stage III – Sustainability The Sustainability stage of a typical TargetTeach implementation requires two years to complete, during which time the district or school takes responsibility for all training and coaching. ENI traditionally continues to provide contracted services for aligning local curriculum with newly adopted text series, updating formative assessments, and providing professional development as

© Copyright 2010 Evans Newton Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Page 3 of 12

needed. Michael Fullan (2005) provides ENI the theoretical foundation of Stage III. Fullan identifies eight elements necessary to sustaining the leadership required to implement deep systemic reform: 1) public service with a moral purpose; 2) commitment to changing context at all levels; 3) lateral capacity-building through networks; 4) intelligent accountability and vertical relationships; 5) deep learning; 6) dual commitment to short-term and long-term results; 7) cyclical energizing; and 8) the long lever of leadership. Further, ENI offers schools the possibility to transform themselves and become systems of continuous change and improvement “through systems thinking” and collective stakeholder conversations that identify the underlying assumptions that maintain the status quo, examine and deal with barriers to change, and analyze gaps between the existing school system and the desired school system, all as posited by Allison Zmuda, Robert Kuklis, and Everett Kline (2004). EMPIRICAL RESEARCH BASE OF ENI’S TURNAROUND & TRANSFORMATION MODEL

Meta-Analysis (2009) In 2009, Joanna S. Gorin and Mary Aleta White, of Arizona State University, conducted a research study which found that the TargetTeach Five-Step Process makes a statistically significant difference in increasing passing scores for students on their state standardized tests in mathematics and reading, and aside from district-level variables associated with implementation, student demographics, or teacher characteristics. Gorin and White used a meta-analytic approach whereby data from four randomly sampled districts were pooled to study group effects, so the researchers could evaluate outcomes related to the TargetTeach implementation. They used individual-level data because they had access to the raw data sets from each of the four districts:  Lorain City Schools, Ohio (Gorin & Blanchard, 2004). In Lorain, student learning was measured with scores from the Ohio Proficiency Test (OPT) administered in Mathematics and Reading during grades 4 6. The OPT was the state-mandated criterionreferenced test that was being used at the time of Gorin and Blanchard‟s study to measure standards-based learning at various points in elementary and secondary education of Ohio students. Red Bank Borough Public Schools, New Jersey (Gorin, Blanchard, & Dubravka, (2004).) For Red Bank, the study used Grade Eight (8th) Proficiency Assessment (GEPA) scores for Reading and Mathematics. Tulsa Public Schools, Oklahoma (Gorin & White, 2009). The Tulsa data consist of Reading and Mathematics achievement data for grades 5 and 8. The test used was the state‟s standardized achievement test, the Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT). Zion Elementary School District No. 6, Illinois (White, 2009). The Zion data consist of grade 8 Reading and Mathematics scores on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT).







© Copyright 2010 Evans Newton Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Page 4 of 12

Methods of meta-analysis Gorin and White‟s meta-analysis uses individual-level data because the researchers had access to the raw data from each study. The meta-analysis used a “pooling” technique. Rather than looking at the district level data sets, the study drew upon data sets from four districts and then assessed whether there was any change over time: pre-post TargetTeach implementation. If significant differences were found, it was less likely that they were tied to specific, district-level characteristics that may have also been impacting student achievement and more likely that the change can be attributed to the treatment effect or TargetTeach. Each data set used state standardized test scores. Standardized tests are carefully designed for consistency of format, content, and administration procedure. The reliability of a standardized test is verified by statistical evidence gathered by the test publisher during pilot studies. A welldesigned standardized test offers a relatively affordable and efficient way of measuring the achievement of a large number of students. When a high-stakes test must be selected to inform decisions that affect the future of a single student or an entire school district, standardized tests offer the best option for measuring levels of student achievement. Participants in meta-analysis Tables 1 and 2, following, list the number of students in all four districts that were in the districts and specifically in schools using TargetTeach, both before and after the implementation of TargetTeach in Reading and in Mathematics. The schools included from the districts were those that implemented TargetTeach. Tulsa, for instance, has over 80 schools, but only 25 of them were included in the initial implementation of TargetTeach. Table 1 Available Student Population from 4 Districts – Reading
Before TargetTeach After TargetTeach Total Frequency 3,905 3,720 7,625 Percent 51.2 48.8 100.0

Table 2 Available Student Population from 4 Districts – Mathematics
Before TargetTeach After TargetTeach Total Frequency 4,130 4,303 8,433 Percent 48.9 51.0 100.0

Using SPSS computer software for statistical analysis, the researchers drew a random sample (25%) from the pre-implementation and post-implementation students from across all districts, with the software applying an electronic equivalent of the table of random numbers to select the sample. This sampling plan helps to legitimate generalization from the results to the population of interest. By using a random sample in a pooled meta-analysis, researchers can speak with

© Copyright 2010 Evans Newton Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Page 5 of 12

more confidence about whether or not the results are an effect with the variable that is the intervention. Tables 3 and 4, following, list the number of students after sampling. Table 3 Random Sample of 25% of Students from 4 Districts – Reading
Frequency Before TargetTeach After TargetTeach Total 979 954 1,933 Percent 50.6 49.4 100.0

Table 4 Random Sample of 25% of Students from 4 Districts – Mathematics
Before TargetTeach After TargetTeach Total Frequency 1,054 1,076 2,130 Percent 49.5 50.5 100.0

Results of meta-analysis Gorin and White used a chi-square test (cross-tabulation) to examine change in the percent of students passing state tests at Proficient levels or above during pre- and post-implementation periods of TargetTeach. In Reading, participants were randomly sampled (25%) to 1,933 subjects. Approximately 37% of the random sample was above passing or proficient before the implementation of TargetTeach. That percentage increased to 52% after the TargetTeach implementation. This achievement differential, pre-post TargetTeach implementation was statistically significant in Reading (χ2(1) = 41.42, p