An Analysis of the Administration's School Turnaround Policies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Our Communities Left Behind: An AnAlysis of the AdministrAtion’s school turnAround Policies Communities for exCellent PubliC sChools July 2010 communities for excellent Public schools Participating and supporting organizations Action now—Chicago, illinois Action north Carolina* ACtiOn united—Pennsylvania* Alliance for Quality education—new York* Alliance of Californians for Community empowerment—California* Arkansas Community Organizations—Arkansas* Brighton Park neighborhood Council—Chicago, illinois Citizen Action of new York* Communities united—Washington, d.C. delawareans for social and economic Justice—delaware* Kenwood Oakland Community Organization—Chicago, illinois Logan square neighborhood Association—Chicago, illinois Living united for Change America (LuChA)—Phoenix, Arizona minnesota neighborhoods Organizing for Change* missourians Organized for reform & equality— missouri* make the road new York—new York, new York nYC Coalition for educational Justice—new York, new York new York Communities for Change* Organizers in the Land of enchantment—Albuquerque, new mexico Our Washington* PiCO national network--Oakland, California** us Action—Washington, d.C.** Virginia Organizing Project— Virginia* Youth on Board—somerville, massachusetts *state-wide Organizations **national Organizations Acknowledgements We want to acknowledge the leadership role of the Annenberg institute for school reform at Brown university in the preparation of this report, including the data analysis and writing. specifically, we want to thank Christina mokhtar, ivonne Garcia, sara mcAlister, Leigh dingerson, michelle renee and eric Zachary for their contributions. communities for excellent Public schools is supported by Communities for Public education reform (CPer), a collaboration of over 50 foundations working to support the field of education organizing. through grants and technical assistance, CPer infuses education organizing campaigns with the resources they need to address educational inequities at scale. specifically, CPer helps equip community-based, democratically led organizations to push for policies—at the local, state, and national levels—that improve the quality of education provided to low-income students and students of color. 2 Our COmmunities Left Behind Introduction nO One disPutes the CritiCAL need for action to outlined in the Administration’s “Blueprint for reform: improve low-performing schools. there is no question that the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary thousands of schools across the country can and should education Act” and being tested through the school do better—that both internal and external obstacles get in improvement Grants program are not new—only more the way of delivering what we have always promised to prescriptive. they continue a practice of rigid, top-down all our nation’s young people: a free and excellent public solutions that are not supported by research, and that education. exclude meaningful input by parents, students and local communities, despite a growing body of research that the Obama Administration and Congress are currently demonstrates parent and community participation are debating the details of the reauthorization of the critical to improving low-performing schools.1 elementary and secondary education Act (eseA). As part of that process, the department of education (ed) is revisiting old territory through its school improvement We believe that the school turnaround Grants (siG) program, hoping that adding teeth to the strategies being implemented through largely unsuccessful turnaround strategies of no Child the SIG program are time-tested and Left Behind will somehow result in different outcomes for flawed. struggling schools. We believe that the school turnaround strategies being it is not enough to “welcome input” from parents, or to implemented through the siG program are time-tested invite parents to the table to help choose from a pre- and flawed. While the Administration is right to call for determined list of options for their schools. We want to dramatic action and to recognize that significant progress help create a new vision for our schools. is not possible without added resources to support school improvement, it’s time to look at new directions. the today, we are releasing, for the first time in one document, critical questions we must ask are: the list of all the “tier i” and “tier ii” schools that have been identified as eligible for federal intervention under the • what do research and experience tell us about Administration’s “school improvement Grants” program. the most promising models of school change? As outlined in this report, the analysis of the demographic • how can we implement reform that is composition of these schools confirms that low-income sustainable over time, and communities and communities of color will be disproportionately affected by federally-stimulated • who must be at the table to ensure successful intervention. Parents and students in these communities reform? must be at the table when decisions are made that so dramatically affect our schools. Consider the following data: Communities for excellent Public schools (CePs), a new national coalition of community-based organizations • there are currently 2,136 schools on the list of schools composed of parents and students in low-income targeted for siG grants. nearly 1.5 million students communities, is entering the debate. for too long, our attend these schools; communities have been the targets of top-down school • 81% of students in these schools are students of color; improvement efforts. under no Child Left Behind unilateral schools closings, staff firings and charter conversions • 85% of the most urgently targeted schools (tier i) have were tried—and failed to deliver the widespread and high concentrations of poverty (defined as more than sustainable improvements that our students and schools 50% of students eligible for federal free and reduced need and deserve. the school turnaround proposals priced meals); Our COmmunities Left Behind 1 • Black and hispanic students are overrepresented in already begun—is determining which schools receive siG schools. funding, and which of the strategies they will implement. Black students are 72 times more likely to be in a siG-eligible school than white students. hispanic students are 42 times more likely to be in “…it is recommended that a siG-eligible school than white students. policymakers refrain from relying on restructuring sanctions (takeovers, top-down turnaround—defying the private management, charters, and research reconstitutions) to effect school through the school improvement Grants program, the department is sending formula aid to states. in turn, the improvement. They have produced states will then distribute that aid to districts to intervene negative by-products without yielding in these schools based on a prioritized list (not every systemic positive effects.” school that is eligible will receive the additional federal support). mathis, W.,“NCLB’s ultimate restructuring alternatives: Do they improve the quality of education?” east Lansing, the siG program strictly limits how states and districts mi: the Great Lakes Center for education research and use turnaround funds. the program gives districts four Practice, 2009. options for utilizing federal dollars to help struggling tier i and tier ii schools: many education experts and advocates have expressed • turnaround: the school’s principal and all of its concern over the narrow range of options for school teachers are fired. A new principal may rehire up to 2 turnaround. Others have decried the lack of mandated 50% of the former teachers, and must then implement public involvement in determining and implementing the department-outlined strategies to improve student interventions. Communities for excellent Public schools academic and graduation rates. concurs. Although we wholeheartedly agree with the • restart: the district must either convert the need for dramatic and meaningful improvements, we school to a charter, or close it and reopen it under believe there are several reasons why the Administration’s outside management—a charter operator, charter limited, top-down mandates are both bad policy and bad management organization, or education management educational strategy: organization. • the interventions are imposed on the school, rather • school Closure: schools may be closed, with students than being developed with the school community; being transferred to “other, higher achieving schools.” • they focus primarily on structural, rather than • transformation: this model requires that the school educational change—in fact, two of the four options principal be replaced (if s/he has been at the school (closure and “restart”) are silent on any strategies longer than two years), and that schools must choose relating directly to teaching and learning; from an ed-determined set of strategies. under the • they are “one-size-fits-all,” rigidly assuming that these siG program, any district with more than nine tier i models will work in any context—urban, rural or suburban. and tier ii schools in improvement status may not use there is no acknowledgement of local political, cultural the “transformation” model in more than 50% of its and fiscal considerations, no mention of the availability schools. of new teachers or leadership, the presence or absence of educational options should schools close. under All 50 states, the district of Columbia and the us the siG rules, if