LAUREN MORANDO RHIM, PUBLIC IMPACT FOR THE CENTER ON INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT JANUARY 12 & 29, 2009 School Restructuring 2009: What Have We Learned?

Schools Identified for Improvement: The National Picture In , approximately 8,400 schools were identified for improvement By , that number had jumped to nearly 10,700 As we progress toward the goal of 100% proficiency in reading, mathematics, and science by 2014, these numbers are expected to exponentially increase Source: February, 2008 GAO report: No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Could Improve the Targeting of School Improvement Funds to Schools Most in Need of Assistance

Schools Identified for Improvement: The National Picture Schools and states that received state and federal Title I funds have undertaken a variety of improvement activities In , 45 states reported that schools that received improvement funds were engaged in:  professional development,  reorganizing curriculum or instructional time, or  data analysis using student assessment information. Nearly all states reported that they help schools identified for improvement with school improvement plans and professional development, officials in 42 states consider this assistance key to helping schools improve. To assess school improvement activities, 42 states reported that they analyze student achievement data or track school performance trends, and 36 of those states also use feedback from school and district officials. Source: February, 2008 GAO report: No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Could Improve the Targeting of School Improvement Funds to Schools Most in Need of Assistance

Schools Identified for Improvement: The Local Picture Good News : We know about two experience- tested methods for fixing failing organizations  Turnarounds: using vigorous leadership actions to fix the existing organization  Starting Fresh: starting what amounts to a new organization to replace old

Schools Identified for Improvement: The Local Picture Bad News : Use of these 2 strategies is very rare, with a few outliers such as Chicago. Why?  Lack of supply of leaders and operators to fix failing schools  Lack of political will to pursue these 2 strategies, stay the course to replace failed tries  Lack of education-specific know-how about using these approaches

Schools Identified for Improvement: The Local Picture Environm ent Conducive to Positive Change Strong School Leader Engaged in Actions that Foster Dramatic Change

Research on Implementation Successful School Restructuring under NCLB: School Vignettes Objective Present vignettes of five schools that have formally restructured under NCLB and sufficiently raised academic outcomes to demonstrate AYP. Guiding Questions What approach did the schools use to restructure? What if any role did the school leaders play in developing and implementing restructuring efforts? What if any role did external entities play in the restructuring effort (e.g., district, state department of education, or external consultants)? What if any additional resources did the schools obtain in order to restructure? What do internal and external actors credit for the successful restructuring? What if any barriers did the school have to overcome in order to successfully restructure? School Selection Difficult to identify schools that have exited, no central data base Identified schools in AL, CA, IL, GA, MD, MT, NY, and TN Next Steps Conduct interviews with personnel from central office and individual schools

Research on Implementation Tough Decisions: Closing Failing Schools Objective Describe the school closure process in 4-5 districts that have closed schools for performance-related reasons to document experience and capture lessons learned Guiding Questions Why did district officials decide to close schools for performance-related reasons rather than try some other intervention? What process did district officials follow to determine which schools to close? How did the district communicate with the public and district and school staff about its decision to close schools? What did the district do to facilitate next steps for the staff, students and facility following the school closure? Lessons learned? Districts: Chicago, Denver, Hartford, New York, and Pittsburgh Next Steps: Complete interviews

Research on Implementation Managing Staff Replacement: Cross-Sector Lessons for School Turnarounds Objective Based on a review of state laws and collective bargaining agreements and literature review of research across industries, inform state and district policymakers about the freedoms and strategies necessary for school leaders to successfully manage staff dismissal, morale and performance in the turnaround context. Guiding Questions What national trends appear from available data and research regarding the roles and rights of tenured public school teachers? What rights and freedom do school and district leaders have for the dismissal of ineffective teachers? What does the literature from sectors suggest are the most promising strategies for making decisions about and carrying out staff replacement? What lessons arise from the cross-sector research about successfully managing performance among remaining staff, amidst widespread staff turnover? What does the cross-industry research suggest are the necessary freedoms to enable leaders to effectively manage staff dismissals and performance? Next Steps Conduct literature review

References/Resources For the full collection of Public Impact’s resources on fixing failing schools, see For the full collection of the Center on Innovation and Improvement’s resources on school restructuring, see: For more on leadership in failing schools, see Emily Ayscue Hassel and Bryan C. Hassel, “The Big U-Turn,” Education Next, Winter 2009, and Public Impact’s Competencies for Turnaround Success series at publicimpact.com/turnaroundcompetencies.php. For more, see the Starting Fresh series developed by Public Impact for NACSA (publicimpact.com/startingfresh.php) & New Schools Venture Fund’s Considering School Turnarounds. For more, see Kowal et al’s Center for American Progress report Financial Incentives for Hard-to-Staff Schools; and Rotherham’s Education Sector report Title 2.0. For more on making state action credible and viable, see Mass Insight’s The Turnaround Challenge.

References/Resources UVA School Turnaround Resource Center: School Restructuring Under No Child Left Behind: What Works When? A Guide for Educational Leaders (2006). Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools (2008). U.S. Department of Education Lauren Morando Rhim (301)