Online Discussion: Exploring Human Capital Issues in Successful School Turnarounds

To provide some background for the discussion, LeAnn, Don, and Justin, please tell the audience how your organization views the school turnaround challenge, and what your organization does to help meet those challenges. Posted by: Education Sector from Education Sector

Donald Feinstein from Academy for Urban School Leadership responds:

 AUSL views the turnaround challenge as a whole school transformation issue. To remake an existing failing school, we need to address the conditions around human capital, climate and culture, instructional coherence , parent and community relationships. A main part of our strategy is to massively reset a school . We also prepare teachers in our urban residency to become part of the staff of the newly created faculty in the turnaround.

Justin Cohen from Mass Insight responds:

First of all, thanks to Education Sector for having me today!  I'll try to be polite enough to get invited back. The School Turnaround Group (STG) at Mass Insight defines turnaround as a schoolwide approach that both results in rapid increases (i.e. over the course of three years) in measurable student achievement AND sets the stage for continuous improvement after the intensive turnaround phase.  (NB: I use the term "turnaround" to refer to anything that meets this outcome-based definition.  I do not intend to imply the federal definition above.  When referring to any one of the four models, I will put them in quotes and capitalize, like "Restart" or "Turnaround.")

We codified our beliefs about turnaround in the 2007 report The Turnaround Challenge, which discusses the failed schoolwide interventions of the past while suggesting a path forward for future work at fixing chronically underperforming schools.  Our research indicates that all high-poverty schools that dramatically change their results for children do a few things extremely well (namely providing consistently high quality instruction and attending to the particular needs of the children in the school), and that doing those things at scale requires providing both substantial operational flexibility and additional operating capacity to failing schools.

At STG we advise and consult with states, districts, and nonprofits to improve capacity in the field of individuals and organizations attempting the hard work of turnaround.

LeAnn Buntrock from Partnership for Leaders in Education at University of Virginia responds:

 I want to thank ed sector for this opportunity and apologize for my late start jumping in here.  The Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education and more specifically the UVA-School Turnaround Specialist Program (UVA-STSP) defines turnaround as quick, dramatic, and sustainable increases in student achievement (consistent with Justin's response this is not intended to imply the federal definition above).  We agree with the issues identified by Don and Justin relative to human capital and the operational conditions necessary for high impact leaders to effectively turnaround schools which is why we take a systemic approach to turnaround.  Accordingly, our two-year program focuses on two components critical to successful and sustainable turnarounds: high-impact school leaders and the district capacity/conditions necessary to initiate, support and enhance transformational change.  We now require our turnaround partners to utilize a competency]based model for turnaround principal selection.  As an initial first step we work with state and district teams to develop the knowledge, skills and tools for more effective recruitment/selection of turnaround applicants.  As a part of this work, we have begun collaborating with organizations that are innovative and accomplished in this area (we worked with AUSL this past November to deliver a four-day program focused on turnaround leader recruitment/selection).  Over the course of two years we work with school, district and state teams to build the internal capacity necessary to initiate, support and enhance transformational change.  Recognizing that there is no one formula for turning around a school, we work with education leaders to identify key issues and develop strategies based on their own school/district's context.

Each of the four intervention models require a change in leadership at the school. Is a change in school leadership a necessary first step in any school turnaround process? Why or why not? Posted by: Education Sector from Education Sector

Donald Feinstein from Academy for Urban School Leadership responds:

 Yes, a change in leadership is required. Principal effectiveness is critical to the success of any school. Thus, when starting over, the newly created educational tean needs to include bringing in new leadership talent.

Robert Manwaring from Education Sector responds:

I am not convinced that a low performing school needs a new leader to initiate the turnaround process. What absolutely needs to change is the underlying ethos of the school, and changing leadership is the easiest way to achieve that. The low performing schools that I have visited and assisted in their improvement process over the years had several common traits. The staff at the school may have been working hard every day, but often lacked ownership of the school turnaround process. Someone else was to blame - the state which did not provide enough funding but did provide too much regulation; government in general which did not provide the health care and social service supports to ensure that students came to school ready to learn; the district which did not provide enough support; the parents who were not involved in their children's educations; and at times the students themselves who were not motivated to learn (more so in middle and high schools). And, there was some truth for each of these problems. States often do not ensure that the schools get the resources that they need. Issues like weak comparability requirements to ensure that Title I funds for these schools are on top of a fair share of state and local funds, state human capital policies like seniority placement, and overall funding levels. We could go on about improvements at each level of the system, but I will leave that for later in the conversation.

Successful high poverty schools, take all of these issues as a given, but don't let these outside forces define the school. Instead, these schools develop an underlying ethos that the school will succeed despite any challenges that are put before it. Such an attitude becomes a necessary (but often not sufficient) condition to successful school turnaround. A school could develop a new sense of empowerment under an existing leader, but it can be more difficult. Of course, simply replacing the existing leader does not guarantee that the ethos of the school will change, but it may increase the chances when combined with many other changes at the school.

Justin Cohen from Mass Insight responds:

What is non-negotiable in a turnaround situation is that the principal is 100% committed to three notions:

1) That the school currently is in an unacceptable state of under-performance;

2) That the children in that school are capable of achieving at high levels; and

2) That the children in the school are the only individuals in the system not responsible for that under-performance.

Rob is right, in that entire systems (inadvertently) conspire to deliver poor performance in our weakest schools, and principals have received the brunt of the attention in the new School Improvement Grant guidelines.*  But improving schools must start with leadership, and the school leader MUST be committed to the turnaround enterprise and be the right person for the job.  Both Don and Leann work for organizations that have done wonders to codify the qualities that make a principal the "right person for the job," with respect to turnaround, so I'll defer to them on that score.

*I suspect there are both political and practical reasons for this, by the way.

LeAnn Buntrock from Partnership for Leaders in Education at University of Virginia responds:

While a new leader does not ensure turnaround success, research/our experience suggests that it does increase the chances for success.  As mentioned above, we now require our participating districts/states to utilize a competency-based interviewing process focusing on competencies identified by Public Impact that seem to be specific to effective turnaround leaders.  In addition, a key issue to addressed in a turnaround situation relates to the school culture, consistent with Justin's response a culture of high expectations needs to established.  If a leader has been in place in a chronically under-performing school for a period of time (more than a year- 2 years tops), it becomes very difficult for that leader to initiate culture change, i.e., they have become part of the existing culture.  We do believe that it takes certain competencies/capabilities to be an effective leader and that there are other issues to be considered (culture).  In other words, we don't advocate replacing a leader just for the sake of replacing the leader.  We also agree with Rob in that there are district/state conditions/capabilities necessary for turnaround success which is why we also require the engagement/active participation and agreement to certain conditions by the district/state.

Even in the best functioning school, the demands on a school leader are substantial. What are the additional demands that are placed upon leaders in turnaround schools? How can teacher preparation programs and professional development programs prepare principals and other school leaders for these challenges. Posted by: Education Sector from Education Sector

Donald Feinstein from Academy for Urban School Leadership responds:

There seems to be some unique challenges for leaders in turnaround schools. The first main challenge focuses on the role of comunication in managing the change process. Managing meaning for all stakeholders  around the turnaround process is constantly required of new turnaround leaders. A second challenge for leaders is around the re-culturing of the school. Obviously a leader needs buy in from staff, parents and community alike to be successful in this area but the creation of a new positive school environment and culture is a prerequisite for success. The third challenge is around improving student achievement in a persistently low achieving school. This requires a principal and team to be wise about using data to modify instruction and to concurrently provide quality professional development that is aligned to an individual teacher's professional and schools goals. 

Justin Cohen from Mass Insight responds:

I'll first affirm everything that Don said and add brief commentary on two issues. First, changing school culture.  I once talked to a reporter who - when I mentioned that changing the culture of a school was really important - said, "Oh, well that part must be fairly easy."  Huh?  Here's my response: go to the lowest performing high school in any major city, walk around, and try to stay in a positive state of mind for an hour.  Now repeat that for 180 days.  Oh yeah, and teach the kids while you're at it.  Changing culture in any institution is hard work, and it's especially hard when other socioeconomic factors are conspiring against you.

Second, using data to change instructional practice.  Especially at the secondary level, many students have multiple grade level deficits in literacy and numeracy.  Teaching adolescents how to read and do math is not only hard, it's a specialty, and turnaround schools must staff to that unique need.  Most 9th grade English teachers know how to teach the themes in The Great Gatsby; they're not trained to teach adolescents how to read.  Ditto for English language learning and special education; there are disproportionate numbers of English language learners and special education students in most low performing schools, and teaching those children well requires adults with specialty skills, for whom we budget and make real plans to attract and retain.

LeAnn Buntrock from Partnership for Leaders in Education at University of Virginia responds:

 I affirm everything that Don and Justin stated.  In addition to the issues/areas they identified (establishing a culture of high expectation, holding stakeholders accountable, rigorous data analysis to identify strategies/interventions for each student, building coalitions with parents, policy-makers, community members and businesses).  In addition, there has to be increased emphasis on complex management and leadership principles, i.e., teaching leaders how to think like leaders.  In other words, focusing on how to utilize data/information to identify issues and develop strategies for addressing such, given their own unique organizational/community/student environment and conditions.  This includes the ability to communicate, influence, motivate and mobilize staff/community/students these strategies and vision for the school/district.  In order to truly be effective we must stop relying on blanket approaches/practices and select/develop leaders who can draw on resources and practices and then contextualize them given their circumstances.  In a turnaround situation, this is especially critical and one of the reasons, we believe that competency-based selection/development is important. Finally, these concepts are just as important relative to district leaders.

The Administration has proposed four specific school improvement models – turnaround, new start, closure and transformation. Critics have argued that there is not a research basis for any of these models. From your perspective, what does the research tell us about the effectiveness of each of these turnaround models? Are there other approaches that have a better track record? Posted by: Robert Manwaring from Education Sector

Justin Cohen from Mass Insight responds:

Unfortunately, we know more about what doesn't work than we know about what works at scale.  We examine the failed strategies of the past at length in The Turnaround Challenge.  As I mentioned, our research indicates that all high-poverty, high-performing school assure effective classroom instruction (Readiness to Teach), mitigate some of the socioeconomic challenges that students bring with them to school (Readiness to Learn), and provide flexibility for educators in the face of turbulence (Readiness to Act).  These are the common factors in our "Readiness Triangle."  Turning around schools at scale will require putting in place systems that enable this work, whereas most of the interventions of the past (i.e. new programs, consultants, coaches) have actually hampered schools' ability to drive consistent change.

What we think will drive these factors at scale is creating new organizations capacity in the form of lead partner organizations.  Early indicators from schools in Chicago, Baltimore, New York, DC, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles demonstrate promising results for using organizations with specialty skills in turnaround.  Holding these organizations tightly accountable for student outcomes, while providing substantial flexibility to implement new academic approaches, is critical for driving success.  Organizations like AUSL in Chicago and Mastery in Philadelphia already are experiencing tremendous results ... and not incremental results, achievement-gap-closing results.

LeAnn Buntrock from Partnership for Leaders in Education at University of Virginia responds:

Justin is correct, we seem to know more about what does not work than what does.  What we do know is this- schools can be turned around and there is no one answer or formula for doing this, which is why leadership is so critical for the reasons cited in the previous responses- what to do depends on the context (community, staff, students, environment...).  We also know that while there is no single recipe for success, certain elements are consistently associated with effective turnarounds: strong leadership and an infrastructure/district conditions that provide the kind of environment, resources and support (consistent with those identified by Justin/Mass Insight) that allow such leaders to succeed.  It should not be surprising that most (if not all) effective organizations possess these same characteristics.  In other words, we have to stop looking for the blanket approach/one size fits all solution and begin focusing on the leaders that we need to identify issues, develop/implement strategies for success given the circumstances.  (Any mention of necessary leadership includes concomitant systemic support/flexibility/accountability measures). 

Is the goal of annually turning around the lowest one percent of schools feasible? Should the goal be expanded? Can we realistically expect to turn around all of the lowest performers, and, if so, in how many years and through what principal methods? Posted by: Frank Wolfe from Education Daily

Donald Feinstein from Academy for Urban School Leadership responds:

 I do know that the need to turnaround the bottom 1% is real and that all students deserve a quality education. Is it feasible? The challenge is on the supply side of the equation  At this point in time I wonder if there are enough state , district, and /or school management organizations who have the capacity and capabilities to do the work successfully. Reshaping or remaking successful schools from persistently low achieving ones requires a comprehensive approach to school improvement.

Robert Manwaring from Education Sector responds:

I am more worried about the first cohort of schools than the next ones. The federal government is in the process of investing $3.5 billion on an extremely tight timeline. Some of these schools will fail to improve, and to expect otherwise is naive. But, there must be a significant cohort of successful turnarounds for us to learn from. As with any reform movement, the importance of having some early successes are needed to justify continued investments in the turnaround process. Some critics of the current approach want to close all low performing schools while others don't think that it is fair to make any changes until all of the necessary student supports to meet the needs of the whole child are in place. The investment in this first cohort needs to show signs that turnarounds can happen, and that these schools can succeed even if a comprehensive support network is not yet in place.

To improve the chances of success with future cohorts, states should take advantage of the set-asides allowed for state level activities. They can set aside up to 5 percent. Normally for this program that is not a huge amount of funding, but in this case it is - $175 million nationwide. Using that funding to invest in developing new training programs, and supporting new start up organizations would be worth while in helping to address the capacity question for meeting the needs of future cohorts.  

My expectation is that the vast majority of school district will pursue the transformation model which will limit the staffing demand to school principals. But even for this model, there is much work that needs to be done. Working with unions to develop better teacher evaluation systems including pilots and training will be important. Another worthwhile investment would be for states to start to indentify the future cohorts of schools that should be turned around, and provide them with planning grants to figure out the details of the turnaround process to be more strategic. Planning is one of the elements that will be lacking in this first cohort of schools because of the very tight timelines.

Justin Cohen from Mass Insight responds:

This goal amounts to 1000 schools per year, and I do worry that this is a big pill for the education community to swallow.  A wise mentor of mine once said that public sector goals need to be set astronomically high, because even when the status quo conspires to squash that goal, we'll move the needle that much further.  That's how I think about this goal.  There are literally millions of children suffering in our nation's lowest performing schools, and by establishing a lofty goal, the President and Secretary Duncan hopefully have inspired a generation of educators to aspire to something greater.

We will get lots of great examples from the first wave of turnaround, and we also will see a lot of money invested in things that have never worked in the past and will never work in the future.  The important thing will be to highlight those successes, call out the failures, and learn from what works.

All of the models rely heavily on replacement and/or retraining of staff. Yet where are the replacements to come from and if retraining is effective why not do it in situ before a school closes? Posted by: Gina Schatteman from AAAS Science & Technology Fellow

Donald Feinstein from Academy for Urban School Leadership responds:

I agree that school staffs in the bottom 5% of persistently low achieving should be provided training over time with the goal of helping them improve their professional practice. There should be embedded professional development focused on improving teaching and learning. However if through analysis of comprehensive longitudinal student performance data it is shown that a school is  just chronically unable to improve outcomes for students , then a human capital  intervention strategy needs to be implemented. Building a new educational team with replacements is a viable strategy in breaking a cycle of failure.

Robert Manwaring from Education Sector responds:

First of all, my expectation is that school closure is likely to be the least availed of the four models. A closure will only happen in situations where the district was facing a combination of declining enrollment and tight school budgets and was in a situation that they were going to need to close some schools anyway. In these districts, this new initiative plays the role of helping to identify the specific schools that the district should close which can often be a challenging one.

You raised the issue of where these new staff replacements and/or retraining efforts. In some odd way, the current budget situations in states and districts make it a good time to take on some of these challenges. While it may not be good for education overall, the budget situation has lead to a lot of talented teachers and administrators being displaced as districts have been forced to lay off staff. And many districts that are not laying off teachers have implemented hiring freezes. So, for once the supply side may create an opportunity to meet the staffing needs, at least for this first cohort of schools.

Clearly there is need to begin to develop on-going capacity to provide a steady flow of high quality teacher and leader candidates at schools. Currently, most of the $3.5 billion that the federal government is investing in turnarounds is focused on the school, and not on building additional capacity. States can use up to 5 percent for state level activities, and states would be well served to use those funds to begin to expand capacity. But, beyond the current investment, we need to create a steady flow of funding to support both expand existing routes and develop new ones. The Academy for Urban School Leadership and the Partnership for leaders are models for the type of capacity building that we need to invest in now, so that there are future leaders ready for cohorts 2, 3, 4 and beyond.

Justin Cohen from Mass Insight responds:

For me, there are two issues embedded in the staff changing/retraining conversation.The first issue is based on skills and competencies.  Turnaround is a unique enterprise, and every field - public, private, nonprofit - has turnaround specialists.  Schools are just coming to this notion, and it's important to build the skills and competencies - both at the organizational and instructional levels - to drive this work.  This can be accomplished through training, recruitment, and retention/non-retention exercises.

The second issue is one of will.  Not all individuals - even those with the requisite skills - have the will to participate in a turnaround environment.  Schools need the flexibility to assess both the skill and will of individuals participating in turnaround.  This should be a mutual decision on the part of staff and leadership, as leadership needs to have a say in that determination.  Yes, there should be a transparent process for staffing decisions, but the buck must stop with leadership.

LeAnn Buntrock from Partnership for Leaders in Education at University of Virginia responds:

Once again, I agree with my colleagues (this is no fun).  In particular, I think Justin hit the nail on the head.   There are competencies/skills that seem to be specific to effective turnarounds and it is also a matter of will though one of the competencies that we look for relates to an individual's drive/will for transformational change and the belief that it can be done.  The other component that I would add is one we have all mentioned previously, the district conditions/capabilities in place.  These can have a significant impact on replacement/retraining and whether they are done effectively and which is necessary given the situation.  Though, either will work or will likely fit the need if the district has not created an environment allowing for the right decision to be made.  Finally, if districts begin basing selection on getting individuals with the right competencies/skills for the job and providing those individuals with proper development opportunities, i.e., leadership succession planning/development of a talent pipeline, we will be able to bring more of the right people to the table.  AUSL, TFA, NLNS have all demonstrated that there are large numbers of people interested in going into education.  Again, that does not mean that alternative candidates are the sole answer (another blanket approach) rather by focusing on people with right competencies/skills and not just previous experience we will see broader and deeper applicant pools.

What checks and balances are being provided for the additional federal investment? In Arizona, our state just distributed additional DOE grants to charter schools that would provide "challenging curricula and rigorous assessment to underserved students." While some of the schools that received the funds fit this mold, at least one of the schools will be using the funds to expand services into a high income area where students can be selected from the existing (and high performing) district schools. While I support the administration's focus on education, I am wary that there isn't enough accountability in the reform model itself. While the aforementioned charter is likely to perform well due to the student base in the area, the use of federal reform dollars in this case ultimately serves to dilute the fiscal resources from schools in the underserved portion of our city. What safe guards do you see on your end that will keep the additional federal money focused on true reform vs. the most 'trendy' or politically palatable options? Posted by: Lisa Hawkins from Arizona Education Network

Justin Cohen from Mass Insight responds:

This is a really important issue, and a politically dicey one at times.  The new requirements of the School Improvement Grant program provide substantial latitude for states to establish the manner in which funds are distributed.  Mostly, I think this is a good thing.  Whereas before most states simply distributed SIG funds to Title 1 schools on a formula basis, now they can exercise discretion.  States can apply funds to schools and LEAs where both future plans and prior reform efforts indicate a likelihood of future success.  We have referred to this as "creating an intra-state Race to the Top."  Great plans get funded, weak plans do not.

The non-negotiable aspect of the program is that the funds must get allocated only to schools in the "bottom 5%."  The devil there is the manner in which states identify the "bottom 5%."  Most states have established a relatively straight-forward way of conducting that identification process, which isn't necessarily as easy as it seems.  (For example, states need to account for "chronic/persistent" poor performance, meaning accounting for prior year(s) trend data to identify the right schools.)  Some states might be engaging in some "creative accounting" when identifying the bottom 5%, and local watchdog groups should be keeping an eye on that.  However, the identification process is not - and should not - be as simple as drawing a cut-off at a particular one-year proficiency level.

The other reason this becomes politically challenging is that denying funds to already under-resourced communities is always hard.  From an equity standpoint, I understand that, but SIG is just one small part of a much larger Title 1 program, and these funds provide substantial opportunities for real change in our neediest schools.  Giving substantial grants (i.e. $750K+) to a small number of schools/LEAs that commit to real change is a superior strategy to giving trivial amounts to all eligible schools.  See also: RtTT.  And remember, the only eligible schools are the lowest performing schools in a state!

Robert Manwaring from Education Sector responds:

Lisa, I am not sure that I entirely understand your question, but will try to comment on two issues - how these reforms apply to charter schools, and the governance and oversight of low performing schools.

First, most of the $3.5 billion in new federal funding should be used by states almost exclusively to implement one of the four reform models in the lowest 5 percent of the lowest performing schools in the state. This is a unique group. Any charter schools that are identified in this group should likely be closed as part of a state's charter school oversight process, and should not be a candidate for millions in additional funding to turn it around. The whole concept behind charter schools is a tradeoff of greater flexibility from the current governance and regulatory environment in exchange for a higher level of accountability. Part of that accountability should ensure that charter schools that are chronically low performing and qualify as "persistently lowest performing," should be candidates for school closure. It does appear that some of the schools in Arizona identified as persistently lowest performance - also called Tier I and Tier II schools are charter schools. This is an area where you are right to be concerned. If on the other hand, the charter school that you are referencing is part of the solution (and not part of the problem), then it would seem reasonable for the state to provide funding to the school, although there would should be some level of assurance that the new charter school replacing the old district school, and least some level of oversight.

The second issue is the governance and oversight of low performing school turnaround in general. Here I think that the federal government has allowed states to take a hands-off approach to the school turnaround process to date. Generally state departments of education do not have an incentive to get involved in the turnaround process, and are much more comfortable distributing the funding, providing some technical assistance occasionally, and then leaving the hard work to districts. And to many districts have not been able to do more than incremental reforms because of local political constraints.

I think that the federal government should begin to create incentives for states to play a more active role in the oversight of school turnarounds. There could be an earn autonomy approach in federal law. There is desire from the states and school districts to have greater flexibility instead of having to administer one of these four specified models. In states where the state is playing an active role of monitoring and overseeing the school turnaround process, those states should be given flexibility to move beyond the four specific models.  

You've noted the challenges that principals, particularly in their roles as change agents. What supports do you think would be most essential for principals who are leading schools through the process of structural transformation (and all that that entails)? Which reform support organizations are currently providing these kinds of supports in these settings, and are they taking into account the kinds of issues you raised in response to the previous question about what principals need to do differently to effectively manage change in these settings? Posted by: Kathryn Furano from James Irvine Foundation

Justin Cohen from Mass Insight responds:

I would break the supports principals need into two primary categories:

1) Tools to make principals more effective building leaders; and

2) Tools that buffer principals from the regulatory and compliance issues that often get in the way of instructional leadership.

Turnaround is an intense period that requires a principal to focus deeply on both increasing the quality of instruction in a building and building a positive academic culture.  All of the other things that are required of school leadership - compliance, stakeholder engagement, implementing state/district mandates, adopting new programs - while important, are ultimately secondary to the core enterprise of teaching and learning.  Principals must get supports that help them be more effective at the former, while having an infrastructure that deals with the latter, allowing to focus more on the former.  As for organizations that are effective at that, there are fewer than we need, but more than we think ... my co-discussant, Don Feinstein, leads one of the finest in the country, AUSL.  Mastery in Philadelphia, Green Dot in LA, Friends of Bedford in DC, and Friendship Schools in DC/Baltimore are some others. In order to do this work at scale we must both increase the capacity of organizations that already do this work, while persuading and incentivizing organizations that do similar work to take on this challenge.

I keep asking this question, but without getting an answer, so maybe this is the spot. How do you balance the autonomy of teachers with the autonomy of principals and others in a turnaround situation. Even the best turnaround specialists, and I think very very highly of you guys, are embarking on an adventure where we still don't know nearly enough. You shouldn't even think about that journey with listening to the experiences of veteran teachers who have been through this before. I respect your answer that you don't want to get bogged down with negativism, but there's a fine line between negativism and wisdom born of hard-earned experiences. Get the balance wrong between enthusiastic commitment, and the rights of veterans to contribute their judgments, and you'll regret being in too much of a hurry to listen to the lessons of the past. Please remember, a hitter in baseball who succeeds in 1/3rd of his at-bats is a star. How do you avoid setting the horrible precedent of allowing managment to silence the hard-earned professional judgments of teachers on the chance that rapid change will work? I'm really looking for an answer because I really do wish you guys well. I would sacrifice a measure of my freedom to follow my conscience in the pacing of instruction, for instance, but ask too much along those lines and I would hope the best teachers would tell reformers where to get off. And I don't think turnarounds have a snowball's chance to be sustainable without our experience..Posted by: John Thompson

Justin Cohen from Mass Insight responds:

Culling the collective experience of teachers and leaders is critical to make turnarounds more effective. Nobody knows enough yet to claim that there is a "silver bullet" that fixes failing schools. This whole enterprise will be a learning process, and I don't take anyone seriously who claims that we have all of the answers. I do think we know something about what works to turn around an individual school, but the complications and challenges that emerge with scaling the work are bound to provide both expected and unexpected learning experiences.

I don't know anyone who denies that both teachers and leaders are important voices and in this learning process. Ultimately, though, some individuals need to be empowered to make decisions, and those decisions need to be driven by the best interests of the children in a school. Sometimes that will involve disrupting existing adult power structures, and at times, require hard decisions about individuals' positions. None of this should be taken lightly, and I fear that we often trivialize professional livelihoods by invoking the best interests of children. That said, someone needs to be empowered to make unpopular decisions, and we have avoided unpopular decisions for a long time and have in the process only nibbled at the edge of reform.

Robert Manwaring from Education Sector responds:

John, as usual, your question is a challenging one. I am going to start off with a broad generalization that may not include every low performing school, but at least a lot of them that I have visited over time. Generally, schools that are in a school turnaround situation are chaotic places where the staff at the school are no strangers to change. In fact the staff at these schools are in a constant state of change - new superintendents, new principals, high staff turnover, new reform efforts, and the latest program that is critical to the school's academic improvement. Often low performing schools suffer from having too many programs and are trying to do too much, and as a result end up doing most of it not very well.

Now take a highly effective veteran teacher at one of these schools.  Probably the best thing that such a teacher could do would be to ignore all of the chaos and change at a school, and just keep doing what she knows works for her kids. Unfortunately, too many veteran teachers think that they are that highly effective veteran teacher, while many of them are not. The difficulty for a new school leader coming into the school is to figure out the difference between the two and all of the spectrum in between. Now, ususally there are some staff that need to be replaced at these schools, but keeping a core set of veteran teachers will help with any reform attempt. There are of course some must haves that are similar to the ones that Justin outlined above - belief that currently the current under-performance is unacceptable, that children are capable of achieving at high levels, and that the children are not the problem (although in later grades students need to take more ownership than they currently do in many of these schools). In addition, these teachers must be willing to work with new school leaders.

I think that Charlotte-Mecklenburg has been implementing a turnaround model that shows promise and builds in a prominent role of teachers as leaders in the turnaround process that they refer to as Strategic Staffing. See recent report from Education Resource Strategies for more. Basically, a new leader comes into the turnaround school with a team - a principal, assistant principal, literary facilitator, behavior management technician, and five teachers with proven success. The new team may remove up to 5 teachers from the existing staff who will basically be replaced by the members of the new team. The process is planned over almost the entire prior year, providing time to develop an implement the turnaround instead of a rush job that is currently taking place around the country. There approach is able to take advantage of the vast experience that veteran teachers bring with them. By bringing in a set of veteran teachers as part of the new leadership team, and then retaining most of the existing staff to work with the new team, their reform appropriately incorporates the contributions that teachers can make to the turnaround process while at the same time providing an environment to rapidly change the climate at the school.

Most of the time, principals do not want to get rid of half of their staff because they would not know what type of replacement staff they might get in return. But, being able to transfer out the few teachers that are likely to be disruptive to the turnaround process, and having the remaining staff know that the leadership does have the ability to remove a small number of teachers, can quickly change the culture at the school.  

LeAnn Buntrock from Partnership for Leaders in Education at University of Virginia responds:

Effective and sustainable turnarounds require engagement, buy-in and support from teachers as well as leaders.  The "hero principal" approach does not lead to true transformational change.  Our program requires participation of a school leadership team in addition to district/state support teams.  Alignment between teachers, principals, and district/state leaders is an important element of turnaround success.  Having said that, difficult decisions often have to be made and just as there are certain competencies/skills that seem to be specific to turnaround leaders, there are certain competencies/skills that seem to be specific to teachers that excel in turnaround situations.  You are correct in that the wisdom of hard earned experience should not be ignored.  However, in a turnaround situation a sense of urgency is critical as is the belief that all children can learn and that decisions should be made relative to what is in the best interest of kids.  Refusal to change even when student achievement is astoundingly low is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Robert Manwaring from Education Sector responds:

 Another program to follow that may shed a lot of light on this balance between teacher autonomy and leadership autonomy is taking place in Los Angeles Unified. As part of the a turnaround strategy, the school board for LA decided to auction off the management of a set of their lowest performing schools as well as a set of newly opening schools. While unions were critical of the public school choice policy of the board, when it came time to apply for the management of the schools, the site teachers with the support of the teacher's union collaborated in the development of turnaround plans that won the competition to manage many of the first cohort of choice schools. Kudos to the teachers union for stepping up and putting their reform ideas into motion. I am not sure who is evaluating the school choice policy schools, but this will be a set of schools to watch over the next couple of years.  I think that these schools show that the opportunity is there if teachers really want to take a more active role in the administration of their schools. At least in some states, a majority of teachers could vote to transform their school into a charter school, and have a similar managerial / leadership role. Unfortunately, that has not happened often enough.

As mentioned above, there is still a lot that we do not know about how to turnaround large numbers of schools, and additional experimentation, like in LA should be encouraged.

Last month, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) committee met to discuss school turnarounds in the context of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). At the committee hearing, the unique needs of low performing rural schools came up several times. To date, most of the attention of school turnaround has been focused on schools in larger urban school districts. Can the four models proposed work in rural settings? If not, how should school turnaround efforts be implemented in rural districts? How can states and districts meet the staffing needs of low performing rural districts? Posted by: Robert Manwaring from Education Sector

Donald Feinstein from Academy for Urban School Leadership responds:

 The challenges of turning around persistently low achieving schools in rural America are not insignificant. The issues around human capital  and flexible operating conditions seem to be major in these districts. It appears that this awareness may have partially contributed to the development of the transformational model choice in school improvement grants. The transformational model requires minor replacement of staff and allows for realistic change without overwhelming small rural districts Obviously even when executing this model, the school  would need significant buy in from staff  and other stakeholders relative to the new organizational processes that would be put in place to support effective teaching and learning. Knowing that a meaningful percentage of persistently low achieving schools reside in rural America ,we cannot afford to ignore them and maintain the status quo.

Robert Manwaring from Education Sector responds:

I think that moving forward, we will need to provide greater flexibility for schools beyond the four scripted models, but flexibility can not be used as a loophole like it has too often been in the case of NCLB. Restructuring, the final stage of intervention in low performing school that have failed AYP for 5 and 6 consecutive years, allowed districts to choose "other major restructuring" which often lead to these schools implementing small incremental reforms instead of transformative ones. Senator Bennett (CO) summed the issue up well at the Senate hearing on this issue:

"There is a difference between giving people the flexibility to do something, and giving people the flexibility to do nothing."

Using this as a guiding principle, I think that there is a way to provide flexibility for states and districts that are able to propose alternative approaches. It will take setting up a review process to separate the transformative alternatives from those that at best would result in incremental change.

The shock and awe effect of the ARRA school improvement money flowing out to the states will likely be substantial. How can we ensure that we capture the lessons learned from this unprecedented moment and apply them to the long term reform efforts? Posted by: Jim Kohlmoos from Knowledge Alliance

Donald Feinstein from Academy for Urban School Leadership responds:

 I agree that we need to be more cognizant of the importance that knowledge management and evaluation can play in school reform efforts. To capture important , valid and reliable lessons learned in an educational environment that is promoting innovation and change is crucial to the proliferation of effective models. Therefore it is equally important to set aside some of these federal dollars to do the research in order to add to the body of knowledge around proven best practices.

Justin Cohen from Mass Insight responds:

It's a great question, and at the School Turnaround Group/Mass Insight we are doing our best to capture emerging best practices through communities of practice, case studies, and ongoing relationships with our stakeholders, primarily districts, states, and nonprofits.  The critical questions to answer are:

1) Have we defined success?  At the end of three years, how much have the bottom 5% of schools improved?  What does improvement mean?  Are we settling for middling gains, or are we looking for gap-closing improvements?  I'm interested in the latter.

2) Were there commonalities among the strategies at schools that improved dramatically?  What about among those that didn't improve?

3) Are states' and districts' figurative feet being held to the fire to change course when data demonstrates that interventions are ineffective?  Conversely, will there be sufficient political pressure, organizational/human capacity, and regulatory infrastructure to scale things that do work?

As the questioner knows, I'm deeply concerned - for good reasons - about that last bit.  Scale is really hard.  Just because we can do something well once doesn't mean we know how to do it well 1000 times.  I mean here to illustrate the complexity, rather than provide concrete answers.  The good news is, the culture in public education has shifted to a place where most folks are at least comfortable with the notion that school performance is highly differential.  This should make us less afraid of our failures and more equipped to replicate our successes.

And another point on that ... some of this will fail.  I really dislike the mantra that "failure is not an option."  Guess what?  In this richest nation in the history of the world, we have TONS of schools where fewer than 50% of students graduate.  We have massive achievement gaps.  Failure isn't an "option" ... it's the harsh present reality.  Nobody can predict whether or not all of the efforts at fixing failing schools will work.  But unless we're willing to try new, often unpopular, things, the only thing we CAN predict is that very failure of the status quo.

This concludes the two days of discussions. I want to thank Justin, LeAnn, and Donald for taking times out of their busy schedules to participate in this discussion. I think that your comments start to shed light on the work that is ahead of us in addressing the needs of chronically low performing schools, and the teacher and leadership issues that we must address. These issues will be critical in the investment of $3.5 billion over the next couple of years, and at the center of the reauthorization discussions. Readers with additional comments or concerns can email me. Thanks again. Rob