In a commentary piece for Education Week, Alan Blankstein of the HOPE Foundation and Pedro Noguera of the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education detail their concern at “the approach prescribed by the US Department of Education” for school turnarounds. While they agree that the approach is “well intentioned,” it is also “misguided.”
Due to the amount of money being spent on school turnarounds and the tight timelines within which they are supposed to happen, there is a new industry for “school turnaround experts,” many of whom have no track record of helping struggling schools. There is a knowledge base on how to turn around failing schools, stemming from case studies of successful turnarounds. However, the administration appears to be ignoring these successes.
The first problem, the authors argue, is that the administration prescribes a remedy before accurately diagnosing the problem. Hiring and firing staff on the assumption that they are “lazy or uninterested in improving” is the wrong end of the stick and a far too simplistic remedy for the real problems. Careful consideration of each staff member’s strengths, weaknesses, and chances for improvement through professional development should be a priority, rather than mandating mass firings—which are often disruptive to the turnaround process.
Furthermore, failing schools “typically exhibit signs of dysfunction.” This includes discipline problems, tardiness and absenteeism, a lack of collaboration, low morale, and strained relations with parents; and failing schools usually serve the most disadvantaged students who show up to school with “a variety of unmet social needs.” In order to turn around these schools, some of these needs must be addressed via the creation of a shared vision, buy-in, and a development of community. These measures cannot be mandated.
The authors draw on personal experiences with failing schools to formulate several keys to successful turnarounds. Some of these include:
1. A “new day” begins. This can be via a change in leadership, the creation of a leadership team, or the entry of an external partner which promotes the idea that things are going to change in a positive way, rather than in a negative way via mass firings.
2. The school status is addressed. The key agents of change need to understand the internal dynamics of a school, so interviews with each member of the school staff is imperative to help determine a way forward.
3. Early wins build credibility and the climate for more success. This could be something as simple as a reduction in physical conflicts between students; any positive change paves the way for more.
4. Establish clear measurable goals, and avoid trying to do too much at once.
5. Build partnerships with parents and community organizations. In order to address some of the unmet social needs discussed above, schools must partner with external community organizations who can fill the gap.
To read the entire article, please visit http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/01/18/17blankstein_ep.h31.html?tkn=TVCFh03TzMNdk%2B0pgST1Xa5oJVsSdhdJIO%2BF&cmp=clp-sb-ascd
