School Districts Reveal Lack of Familiarity, Implementation with Turnaround Models
A survey released this week by the Center on Education Policy finds that very few school districts are familiar with the four controversial models to turn around low-performing schools, and as a result even fewer have implemented them. Over one third of school districts admit they are not familiar with the four models, and fewer than 12 percent of districts have implemented any of these models in their low-performing schools.
The Obama administration prescribes these four turnaround models for the bottom 5 percent of schools in each state. The four models, ranging from the least disruptive-“transformation”-to the most disruptive-school closure-all require replacing the principal as the first step, a strategy that NASSP not only opposes but also finds unfounded and illogical. The public seems to be on our side: a recent public opinion poll by Phi Delta Kappa International and the Gallup Organization shows that 54 percent of those surveyed prefer that principals and teachers in low-performing schools stay in place and receive additional help to improve. With such drastic action required in each of the four models, including replacement of the principal, it is not surprising that so few districts have implemented them, given a number of challenges and questions these models provoke.
In the May issue of NASSP’s monthly newsletter NewsLeader, NASSP Executive Director Gerald N. Tirozzi criticizes the logic of the four turnaround models. Naming them “misguided models,” Dr. Tirozzi states that “no research base exists for any of the models proposed.” Important questions abound in light of these four models. In the NewsLeader article, Dr. Tirozzi asks a number of these questions, including where we expect to find so many high-quality replacements of the staff and principals who must leave these schools; and if the principals and staff being replaced are supposedly incompetent, how the administration can justify their reassignment to another school.
In contrast to Secretary Duncan’s assertion that “something dramatic needs to be done” in the way of these four models, Dr. Tirozzi shares that true school turnaround is much more methodical, and involves “digging into data, crunching numbers, and discovering deficiencies; then identifying, implementing, and measuring the effect of appropriate interventions.” In addition, true school turnaround should not necessitate removal of a potentially dynamic principal, especially without a fair and thorough evaluation to determine that principal’s performance and their capability and willingness to improve.
The Center on Education Policy conducted their survey this spring and will administer another one next spring, when it expects that more districts will be implementing these four models upon receiving their share of the $3.5 billion Title I School Improvement Grant that some states and districts had not yet received this spring.
Regardless of how many more districts will implement these four models, NASSP will continue to view the models as an unfounded and therefore unwise path to true school turnaround that our nation’s most struggling schools so desperately need.
