U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that he plans to demand radical steps鈥攕uch as firing most of a school鈥檚 staff or converting it to a charter school鈥攁s the price of admission in directing $3.5 billion in new school improvement aid to the nation鈥檚 5,000 worst-performing schools.
In sharp contrast to the current free-flowing nature of Title I school improvement aid, the education secretary is proposing strict conditions on the new funds, which would not only be aimed at elementary schools, but also at what he termed high school 鈥渄ropout factories鈥� and the middle schools that feed into them.
In exchange, the federal Department of Education could waive key components of the Title I program, such as the requirement that schools needing improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act offer tutoring and public school choice, according to released last week.
The are made possible by $3 billion from the economic-stimulus package and $546 million from fiscal 2009 appropriations鈥攁nd are meant to be spent by school districts over the next three years. The money will flow to states based on the Title I formula for aid to disadvantaged students, but states will award the money competitively to local districts.
Historically, school improvement grant money has flowed to school districts with little to no strong direction from the federal government, so the proposed new regulations mark a sea change for these grants. And never before has the amount of money dedicated to school improvement been so large.
Four Restructuring Models
The regulations are aimed at turning around the worst schools, specifically those in each state that rank in the bottom 5 percent for achievement. However, school improvement grants鈥攚hich will amount to a maximum of $500,000 a year per school鈥攁re also available for struggling Title I schools that do not rank so near the bottom.
Under proposed Education Department guidelines, school districts, with a few exceptions, would have to adopt one of four 鈥渞igorous interventions鈥� to qualify for some of the $3.5 billion in Title I school improvement grants that would be spent over the next three years.
Turnaround Model: This would include among other actions, replacing the principal and at least 50 percent of the school鈥檚 staff, adopting a new governance structure and implementing a new or revised instructional program.
School Closure: The district would shut down a failing school and enroll its students in high-achieving schools in the district.
Restart Model: School districts would close failing schools and reopen them under the management of a charter school operator, a charter management organization or an educational management organization selected through a rigorous review process.
Transformational Model: Districts would address four specific areas: 1) developing teacher and school leader effectiveness, which includes replacing the principal and requiring student achievement growth to be used to reward and dismiss teachers, 2) implementing comprehensive instructional reform strategies, 3) extending learning and teacher planning time and creating community-oriented schools, and 4) providing operating flexibility and sustained support.
Source: U.S. Department of Education
The department is demanding the most radical change from the bottom 5 percent. Those schools would have to agree to adopt one of four restructuring models: close the school and send students to higher-achieving schools; turn it around by replacing the principal and most of the staff; 鈥渞estart鈥� the school by turning it over to a charter- or education-management organization; or implement a mandatory basket of strategies labeled 鈥渢ransformation.鈥�
鈥淲e鈥檙e going to provide a range of concrete options,鈥� said Mr. Duncan, who frequently says he does not want to dictate education reform from Washington.
He added that the department鈥檚 four proposed turnaround models are based on an analysis of what kind of programs are working at the local level. 鈥淭he right solution is going to vary district by district. ... The answers might be very different in each school.鈥�
But while many public school advocates cheer the targeting of federal dollars to the country鈥檚 lowest-performing schools, they also question how some of the components will work.
Mary Kusler, the assistant director for advocacy and policy for the Arlington, Va.-based American Association of School Administrators, said collective bargaining agreements and laws in many states and school districts could complicate efforts to replace staff members.
And on a broader level, Ms. Kusler recalled how Secretary Duncan has repeatedly criticized the No Child Left Behind Act as too prescriptive.
鈥淲hile we support the regulations, they seem to be much tighter on both the goals and how you get there, and that doesn鈥檛 seem to match what Secretary Duncan has been saying since he came into the position,鈥� she said.
All four reform models being proposed by the department zero in on one key component of a school: the principal. Unless a massive restructuring is already under way, each reform model calls for the replacement of the principal.
On one hand, this is heartening to Diane Cargile, a 24-year veteran of the school principal鈥檚 job and the president of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, in Alexandria, Va.
鈥淲e have always realized that the principal is the primary catalyst for shaping the long-term impact of school improvement,鈥� said Ms. Cargile, who is in her ninth year as principal of Rio Grande Elementary School in Terre Haute, Ind.
But removing a principal isn鈥檛 a magic bullet, either, she said, as good principals need the right talent and time to let reforms work. 鈥淚f you put another principal in the same environment without changing the circumstances, they won鈥檛 be successful.鈥�
鈥楻adical Change鈥�
Each of the proposed reform models mirrors the steps schools are supposed to take under the NCLB law when they enter the restructuring phase, which is triggered after five consecutive years of failing to make adequate yearly progress.
This time, however, the restructuring isn鈥檛 a consequence, but a part of a $3.5 billion incentive program to get schools to change their ways.
鈥淯nder NCLB, very little sort of radical change happened across the country,鈥� said Mr. Duncan. Although pockets of schools may have undertaken such change, he added, the results haven鈥檛 been systemic. 鈥淲ith these [failing] schools, just tinkering around the edges isn鈥檛 sufficient.鈥�
The regulations, which will be open for public comment until Sept. 25, speak directly to his goal of turning around the nation鈥檚 5,000 worst schools.
And Mr. Duncan, a former chief executive officer of the Chicago public schools who frequently cites his district鈥檚 experience at turning around failing schools, said he recognizes that the problem isn鈥檛 just an urban one. About half the worst schools are in urban areas, he said, but 20 percent are in suburban areas, while 30 percent are in rural communities.
鈥淭his is not an urban strategy,鈥� Mr. Duncan said. 鈥淭his is not an urban problem. This is a national problem.鈥�
While prescriptive, the new regulations also contain some flexibility.
School districts would have a big incentive to choose the 鈥渢urnaround鈥� or 鈥渞estart鈥� model because states could apply for a waiver from the Education Department to have that school鈥檚 improvement clock restarted under the NCLB law. As a result, the school would no longer need to provide public school choice or supplemental educational services to students鈥攐ften considered controversial consequences of not making AYP.
Also, a school that doesn鈥檛 have a large enough concentration of poverty to operate a schoolwide Title I program could be allowed to use the new Title I grant money for schoolwide initiatives if the state sought a waiver from federal officials.
Finally, some flexibility would be given to schools that have, within the last two years, started one of the four restructuring models. For example, if a school last year replaced its principal and most of its staff, it would not have to do so again to win a grant.
Targeted for Assistance
In identifying which schools would be eligible for the money, the department would require states to give preference to the lowest-achieving 5 percent of schools in the state, including middle and high schools. Although other low-performing schools could be eligible for money, too, they would not have to agree to adopt one of the four reform models.
鈥淲e鈥檙e offering districts the opportunity to reform their dropout factories,鈥� Mr. Duncan said of the department鈥檚 emphasis on reforming the nation鈥檚 worst high schools.
To encourage school systems to use a variety of reform strategies, districts that have nine or more Title I schools in school improvement under the NCLB law would be barred from using the same turnaround model for all schools.
For accountability purposes, schools, districts, and states wouldbe required to monitor and track student-achievement data as it relates to the use of the school improvement funds. In addition, the Education Department would undertake a national evaluation of the grants.
Researchers who have studied how schools try to restructure themselves caution that there is no magic formula to success.
鈥淚 think it鈥檚 really important to point out that education research doesn鈥檛 really point to an easy fix,鈥� said Caitlin Scott, a consultant who has studied school restructuring efforts for the Washington-based Center on Education Policy. 鈥淲e shouldn鈥檛 expect these options would really create miracles.鈥�
