1. Tough Decisions
Julie Kowal

2. Overview
11/20/2018
Public Impact

3. School Turnarounds & Closures
Dramatic interventions in chronically low-performing schools play a critical role in a state’s overall strategy for improvement
Current School Performance Distribution
Future School Performance Distribution
11/20/2018
Public Impact

4. Staff Dismissals in the Turnaround Context
11/20/2018
Public Impact

5. Research Overview Cross-Sector Lessons
Findings and examples from research outside education about the practices that underlie successful staff dismissals in the turnaround context
Implications for Leaders in Turnaround Schools
Research-backed approaches to targeted staff dismissals for successful turnaround leaders in low-performing schools
Policy Review
Overview of the restrictions and freedoms that currently govern staffing decisions for education leaders in districts and states across the country
Implications for State Leaders
Recommendations to reform policies that limit principals’ ability to successfully manage their staff in the interest of students
11/20/2018
Public Impact

6. Findings Targeted Dismissals Policy Context
More common than wholesale staff replacement
Relieves the organization of employees who cannot support the turnaround, while keeping valuable skills and experience among other staff
Many dismissals are actually voluntary departures
Targeted Dismissals
In most states, school and district leaders have very limited ability to dismiss or transfer tenured and senior teachers
Some states have special provisions for low-performing schools
Policy Context
11/20/2018
Public Impact

7. Key Actions for School Leaders
Communicate a vision, including non-negotiable goals and strategies
Voluntary exits among staff
who are unwilling/unable to meet new goals
Gather a variety of data about staff members' skills and performance
Hold frequent & transparent problem-solving sessions
Voluntary exits among staff who are uncomfortable with increased transparency
Implement an intense schedule of targeted meetings/ evaluations
Formal employment determinations
Involuntary exits
11/20/2018
Public Impact

8. Policy Review
Federal, state and local policies often severely limit principals’ ability to dismiss a low-performing teacher.
But in some cases – such as chronically low-performing or restructuring schools – special policies may allow greater flexibility over staff placement and dismissal.
11/20/2018
Public Impact

9. Policy Review: Examples
One study estimates it can take 10 to 15 percent of a principal’s time over several months just to bring one dismissal case to a hearing.
11/20/2018
Public Impact

10. Implications for State Leaders
Negotiate Expedited Dismissal Processes
11/20/2018
Public Impact

11. Implications for State Leaders
Enable Greater Staffing Flexibility
11/20/2018
Public Impact

12. Implications for State Leaders
Prioritize Recruitment, Hiring & Placement
11/20/2018
Public Impact

13. Implications for State Leaders
Assemble Support Teams
11/20/2018
Public Impact

14. Closing Failing Schools
11/20/2018
Public Impact

15. Research Overview School district profiles: Lessons from the Field
Chicago (60 schools between 2001 and 2008, impacting 18,000 students)
Denver (13 schools in 2007, impacting 3,000 students)
Hartford (4 schools in 2007, impacting 1,800 students)
Pittsburgh (22 schools in 2006, impacting 6,000 students)
Implications for State & District Leaders
Recommendations based on lessons learned from previous experience to make the closure process as smooth, positive and integrated as possible.
School district profiles:
Denver:
In 2007, DPS announced plan to close 8 schools and redesign 5 others by changing grade configurations or school program. Decision driven by declining enrollment and poor student performance.
Pittsburgh
In 2006, district closed ¼ of the district’s schools (22) in response to declining enrollment and low student performance. Opened 8 new Accelerated Learning Academies (K-8 schools where principals have autonomy to hire and fire teachers).
Hartford
In 2007, closed 4 schools for underperformance. Replaced with 7 new school “designs” – four designs in one high school building, one design in each elementary building (e.g., Core Knowledge, Latino studies, Nursing Academy).
Chicago
District began closing schools for performance reasons in 2002 and has closed more than 25 schools in 7 years since. Have leased some buildings to charter schools, closed some facilities altogether, and contracted with outside operators to manage schools turnarounds (staff replaced but students stay).
11/20/2018
Public Impact

16. Choosing School Closure
Challenge of overcoming a culture of failure
Failure of prior interventions
Revenue and facilities considerations
11/20/2018
Public Impact

17. Implications for State Leaders
Consider Closure in Context of Larger Reform
11/20/2018
Public Impact

18. Implications for State Leaders
Let Data Guide Decision-Making at All Stages
11/20/2018
Public Impact

19. Implications for State Leaders
Develop a Detailed Transition Plan
11/20/2018
Public Impact

20. Implications for State Leaders
Follow a Strong Communications Plan
11/20/2018
Public Impact

21. Discussion
11/20/2018
Public Impact

22. Julie Kowal
(919)