Research bears out 'wishful thinking' on turnarounds
by Erika Owens on Aug 04 2009
In addition to Pickett, Mastery manages three other charter schools in Philadelphia. Above is a science class from the Mastery at Shoemaker middle school in West Philadelphia.
Ed Week has a (free!) piece about the (lack of) research around turnaround programs for underperforming schools. Part of it echoes the editorial from our Spring edition:
"Turnaround is meant to quick-start a culture change, and there are those specially trained to do this. Using their expertise makes sense; but assuming that there are managers for hire who will resolve the deep-seated problems of struggling schools is wishful thinking."
That quick start is one thing "expert opinion is nearly unanimous" on, and "experts say, an early, quick win might be as simple as a fresh paint job on a tired building." That kind of jumpstart is definitely doable, but as was pointed out in the editorial, it does not address the deep-seated problems.
The crackdown on "squeegee pests" in NYC was used as an example of a quick start, which instilled confidence in the NYPD. But, skepticism isn't the problem with Philly schools. If anything, spending time on those sorts of "wins" can be a diversion when the only way to turnaround is to confront the systemic problems.
And how to do that remains unclear in the research because "'...turnaround specialists have to determine what conditions led to the decline in the first place,' said Daniel L. Duke, a professor of educational leadership with the University of Virginia program." Different conditions lead to different tactics and different research conclusions.
The article mentions turnaround examples in Philly at Delaplaine McDaniel Elementary School and at Pickett Middle School, which is managed by Mastery Charter. Notebook blogger, Eric Braxton, has been writing about how turnaround may work in Philadelphia, specifically with high schools.
Superintedent Ackerman is ready for "radical" change and has the support of Secretary Duncan who is also calling for dramatic change. This energy and emphasis on turnaround may end up helping create the research that is lacking now, it's "a huge learning opportunity," according to Bryan C. Hassel of Public Impact.
Comments (5)
Submitted by Erika Owens on Wed, 08/05/2009 - 19:20.
I'm definitely curious about that as well. One thing we do know is that former District CEO candidate and Edison schools exec, Leroy Nunery, got a $90,000 contract to develop the Renaissance schools plan. Not sure what has been decided from there. We'll be keeping an eye on this.
Submitted by Erika Owens on Wed, 08/05/2009 - 22:49.
The article does mention one of those schools with the UVA trained principal, but it does not give any data about the school either. The article cites a stat for the UVA training overall though "Of the 43 principal “turnaround specialists” in the program’s first three cohorts, 57 percent went to schools that have since either met their targets for adequate yearly progress under the NCLB law or achieved substantial academic gains."
Len Rieser blogged about the lack of institutional memory a few months back. It doesn't seem like there has been much progress in that area though. But with all of the different programs tried here, there is a wealth of information we should be working with instead of starting for scratch each time. Maybe that research into recent programs is what that $90k is going towards?
(Also, sorry about the comments getting caught in our filter. All should be good now!)
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/06/2009 - 06:45.
Lots of good questions. Three of the "turn around" school were Olney East, Olney West and Clemente. I don't think any have made AYP. I believe all but one principal is the same - Olney West principal is an administrator in the Central East Region. That said, the data driven component of the "turn-around" strategy is suppose to be incorporated by all regions next year. Basically, there are targets (e.g. attendance, benchmark scores, etc.) and they are reviewed quarterly. My experience was the data was "played" - students were consistently marked present who were not in school starting in the spring to boost attendance. Teachers found out when the attendance was altered. Also, benchmarks in some classes became a joke. Students were given tests and "helped" while taking them. So, yes attendance and benchmark scores went up but not the PSSA scores.
We need a holistic "turn-around" model that does more than boost some data that is easily manipulated. If "children come first," then their long term well being has to be considered.
Post new comment