LAUREN MORANDO RHIM, PUBLIC IMPACT

FOR

THE CENTER ON INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

JANUARY 12 & 29, 2009

School Restructuring 2009: What Have We Learned?

Schools Identified for Improvement: The National Picture

In 2004-3005, approximately 8,400 schools were identified for improvement

By 2006-2007, that number had jumped to nearly 10,700

As we progress toward the goal of 100% proficiency in reading, mathematics, and science by 2014, these numbers are expected to exponentially increase

Source: February, 2008 GAO report: No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Could Improve the Targeting of School Improvement Funds to Schools Most in Need of Assistance

Schools Identified for Improvement: The National Picture

Schools and states that received state and federal Title I funds have undertaken a variety of improvement activities

In 2006-2007, 45 states reported that schools that received improvement funds were engaged in:

professional development, reorganizing curriculum or instructional time, or data analysis using student assessment information.

Nearly all states reported that they help schools identified for improvement with school improvement plans and professional development, officials in 42 states consider this assistance key to helping schools improve.

To assess school improvement activities, 42 states reported that they analyze student achievement data or track school performance trends, and 36 of those states also use feedback from school and district officials.

Source: February, 2008 GAO report: No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Could Improve the Targeting of School Improvement Funds to Schools Most in Need of Assistance

Schools Identified for Improvement: The Local Picture

Good News: We know about two experience-

tested methods for fixing failing organizations

Turnarounds: using vigorous leadership actions to fix the existing organization

Starting Fresh: starting what amounts to a new organization to replace old

Schools Identified for Improvement: The Local Picture

Bad News: Use of these 2 strategies is very

rare, with a few outliers such as Chicago.

Why? Lack of supply of leaders and operators to fix

failing schools Lack of political will to pursue these 2 strategies,

stay the course to replace failed tries Lack of education-specific know-how about using

these approaches

Schools Identified for Improvement: The Local Picture

Research on ImplementationSuccessful School Restructuring under NCLB: School Vignettes

ObjectivePresent vignettes of five schools that have formally restructured under NCLB and sufficiently raised academic outcomes to demonstrate AYP.

Guiding Questions What approach did the schools use to restructure? What if any role did the school leaders play in developing and implementing

restructuring efforts? What if any role did external entities play in the restructuring effort (e.g., district,

state department of education, or external consultants)? What if any additional resources did the schools obtain in order to restructure? What do internal and external actors credit for the successful restructuring? What if any barriers did the school have to overcome in order to successfully

restructure?

School Selection Difficult to identify schools that have exited, no central data base Identified schools in AL, CA, IL, GA, MD, MT, NY, and TN

Next Steps Conduct interviews with personnel from central office and individual schools

Research on ImplementationTough Decisions: Closing Failing Schools

Objective Describe the school closure process in 4-5 districts that have closed schools

for performance-related reasons to document experience and capture lessons learned

Guiding Questions Why did district officials decide to close schools for performance-related

reasons rather than try some other intervention? What process did district officials follow to determine which schools to close? How did the district communicate with the public and district and school staff

about its decision to close schools? What did the district do to facilitate next steps for the staff, students and

facility following the school closure? Lessons learned?

Districts: Chicago, Denver, Hartford, New York, and Pittsburgh

Next Steps: Complete interviews

Research on ImplementationManaging Staff Replacement: Cross-Sector Lessons for School

Turnarounds

Objective Based on a review of state laws and collective bargaining agreements and

literature review of research across industries, inform state and district policymakers about the freedoms and strategies necessary for school leaders to successfully manage staff dismissal, morale and performance in the turnaround context.

Guiding Questions What national trends appear from available data and research regarding the

roles and rights of tenured public school teachers? What rights and freedom do school and district leaders have for the dismissal

of ineffective teachers? What does the literature from sectors suggest are the most promising

strategies for making decisions about and carrying out staff replacement? What lessons arise from the cross-sector research about successfully

managing performance among remaining staff, amidst widespread staff turnover?

What does the cross-industry research suggest are the necessary freedoms to enable leaders to effectively manage staff dismissals and performance?

Next Steps Conduct literature review

References/Resources

For the full collection of Public Impact’s resources on fixing failing schools, see www.schoolturnarounds.org.

For the full collection of the Center on Innovation and Improvement’s resources on school restructuring, see: http://www.centerii.org/

For more on leadership in failing schools, see Emily Ayscue Hassel and Bryan C. Hassel, “The Big U-Turn,” Education Next, Winter 2009, and Public Impact’s Competencies for Turnaround Success series at publicimpact.com/turnaroundcompetencies.php.

For more, see the Starting Fresh series developed by Public Impact for NACSA (publicimpact.com/startingfresh.php) & New Schools Venture Fund’s Considering School Turnarounds.

For more, see Kowal et al’s Center for American Progress report Financial Incentives for Hard-to-Staff Schools; and Rotherham’s Education Sector report Title 2.0.

For more on making state action credible and viable, see Mass Insight’s The Turnaround Challenge.

References/Resources

UVA School Turnaround Resource Center: http://www.schoolturnaroundresource.org/index.php

School Restructuring Under No Child Left Behind: What Works When? A Guide for Educational Leaders (2006). www.centerforcsri.org/files/RestructuringGuide.pdf

Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools (2008). U.S. Department of Education

Lauren Morando Rhim lauren_rhim@publicimpact.com

(301)655-1992