Restructuring is Most Common Approach to Improving Low-Performing Schools
Most state education agencies have chosen to close or restructure
low-performing schools rather than shifting more effective educators to those
schools, according to a new report from the United
States Department of Education.
The report, "State
Implementation of Reforms Promoted Under the Recovery Act," evaluated
state-level adoption of educational reforms implemented under the
Recovery Act in the
years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The Recovery Act required SEAs to commit to four key
areas of reform in order to qualify for funding under the Act. One of those key
areas was support for low-performing schools. The other areas were adoption of
Common Core State Standards,
establishment of data systems for performance improvement and improved teacher
effectiveness.
The Recovery Act promoted four avenues of improving low-performing schools:
- Expansion of the number of charter schools;
- Implementation of one of the school intervention models defined by ED;
- Use of compensation incentives to improve staffing at low-performing
schools; and
- Deployment of effective educators in low-performing schools.
Only nine SEAs chose to implement either of the last two options, both of
which were intended to encourage more effective educators to move to
low-performing schools, and 28 SEAs allowed for expansion of the number of
charter schools.
However, almost all SEAs provided their local education agencies with
guidance on implementing one of the four school intervention models defined by
ED.
The four intervention models included:
- The turnaround model, which involves replacing the school principal and
implementing new policies and procedures designed to improve student
achievement;
- The restart model, which involves converting the school to a charter
school or shifting its operation to an education management organization;
- The school closure model, which involves closing the school and moving
the students to higher-performing schools; and
- The transformation model, which uses the turnaround model with
additional policies and procedures related to staffing.
The report from ED did not identify which of the four intervention models
SEAs chose, but 50 of the 51 SEAs provided guidance on implementing at least one
of them.
According to the report, when implementing reforms related to improvement of
low-performing schools, one of the biggest challenges was dealing with "concerns
or opposition from educators about closing or restructuring schools," with 48 of
51 SEAs reporting that challenge. Another major challenge had to do with rules
and regulations related to hiring practices and the degree of autonomy available
to districts and schools in staffing or budgeting.
The full report, "State Implementation of Reforms Promoted Under the Recovery
Act," is available as a downloadable PDF from the
Institute of Education Sciences
site.
About the Author
Leila Meyer is a technology writer based in British Columbia. She can be reached at [email protected].