Ken
O’Brien
So reported the Center for American Progress in Dramatic
Action, Dramatic Improvement: The Research on School Turnaround issued at
the end of last month.
On January 27 of this year, in an article titled “Graduation
rates up, dropouts decline”, the Worcester Telegram reported that Southbridge
had a dropout rate of 69.9%, just missing the cutoff referenced above.
Nevertheless, Southbridge schools have been
chronically underperforming.
What can be learned from this report that can
potentially effectuate a turnaround in our district’s schools?
The study summarizes the most recent research on
school turnarounds as well as focusing on four case studies of successful
programs of change. From these it draws five factors that distinguish
successful efforts.
·
Aggressive
action on the part of school districts - The most compelling
finding from this research review is that school turnaround is possible and
that it occurs when districts take aggressive steps. New York City transformed
some of its large high schools into 100 small, nonselective ones and realized dramatic
improvements in graduation and college-going rates. Houston infused the
practices of high-achieving charter schools into its traditional public schools
and saw its achievement gap in math fall 50 percent. These districts did much
more than tinker around the edges. As researchers at MDRC* noted, “implementing
stand-alone programs that target a specific subset of the student population
tend to have a limited impact and cannot revive a struggling school.”
·
Resources
and requirements - Requirements that states and
districts turn around chronically failing schools through accountability
systems are necessary but insufficient. Because aggressive turnaround efforts
are by nature disruptive, they are often contentious within a community.
Sometimes they engender political opposition. Federal laws that require better
outcomes for students in these schools can give local leaders the freedom to
take aggressive action, while additional targeted resources help make the
transition smoother. When districts and schools are given targeted
funding—either from philanthropic organizations or the government—they are
better positioned to achieve significant change.
·
Governance
and staffing changes - Schools that replaced ineffective
leaders showed the greatest gains in student learning. One study commissioned
by The Wallace Foundation about how leadership influences student learning
found that for the most part, there are no documented instances of school
turnaround without an effective principal—leadership is second only to effective
classroom instruction as the most important school-level factor affecting
student achievement. What’s more, the study’s authors said, “After six
additional years of research, we are even more confident about this claim. To
date, we have not found a single case of a school improving its student
achievement record in the absence of talented leadership.” Simply replacing the
principal, however, is not enough to drive significant change. Principals need
the skills and vision necessary to turn around low-performing schools.
·
Data-driven
decision making - Research supports the use of data-based
decision making to improve student achievement. A study by researchers at the
Council of the Great City Schools looked at the relationship between data use
and student achievement in urban schools. Researchers found a positive
relationship between teachers’ data use and student achievement in elementary
and middle school math, and the use of data by principals was associated with
higher student achievement in some grades and subjects.
·
A
focus on school culture and nonacademic supports for disadvantaged students
- While turnaround efforts are ultimately judged by improvements in academic
proficiency and graduation rates, schools that most successfully turn around
tend to focus their efforts more broadly. They work purposefully and
deliberately to create collaborative, positive, and enriching school cultures
with high expectations for all students. They create fortified environments to
enhance the social, emotional, and behavioral development of all students,
particularly of those who are growing up in poverty and facing challenging
circumstances that affect every aspect of their development. Schools that
successfully turn around offer wrap-around services to help support all the needs
of their students and, where possible, their families and communities.
One of these factors faces particular difficulty in
Southbridge. That has to do with the issue of funding. Repeated promises to
improve the district’s performance have stretched the community’s credulity.
Further complicating the budgetary issue is the prospective loss of a major
budgetary contributor with the imminent demise of landfill revenues. Finally,
the status of the town as the largest concentration of unemployment in
Worcester County hardly bodes well for increased education funds.
One alternative is potentially available through the
Federal program of School Improvement Grants. Five years ago, the federal
government took a more aggressive and targeted approach to school turnaround by
investing substantially in school improvement efforts. Through funds provided
by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—called the School
Improvement Grants, or SIG, program—school districts applied for three-year
grants in exchange for implementing a number of reforms in their chronically
lowest-performing schools. This program has awarded more than $4 billion to
help turnaround at least 1,200 schools across all 50 states. What remains to be
seen is, not only whether Southbridge can qualify for such a grant but, whether
it is willing to accept one of the models
required to implement such a program.
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
In 1974 the Ford Foundation and six government
agencies together created the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. It formally adopted “MDRC” as its registered
corporate identity in 2003.
The main problem with the Southbridge Schools is that they replaced effective leadership with incompetent leadership when the Bobbleheads took control. These incompetents either drove away effective teachers or unfairly terminated them. And now, we have what we have -- and it will take another decade to fix what they have broken. (And, I don't know if it is possible.)
ReplyDeleteJust question. When were the schools effective? I've been a resident my whole life and the schools have been under performing consistently for about 15-20 years.
DeleteI'd love to see the data if there were some years in between that we saw a rise.... maybe we could recreate that. Just curious.