logo
    • Magazine
    • Membership
    • Donate
  • Racial Justice
  • Economic Justice
    • Collections
  • Climate Justice
  • Health Justice
  • Leadership
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Subscribe
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Complimentary Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Membership
  • Submissions

School Transformation Hasn’t Worked—Isn’t That Reason Enough to Stop?

Martin Levine
January 27, 2017
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print

January 18, 2017; Mathematica Policy Research

Making America’s public education system great was the goal of Presidents Bush and Obama. President Trump also sees the problems in our public schools as needing action—so much so that he included his dire assessment of the current state of public education in his inauguration speech. Despite controversy about whether or not this is the province of the federal government, billions of dollars of federal money have been spent on efforts to improve our schools and make good on the promise that all children would receive a high quality education. “No Child Left Behind,” “Race to the Top,” “Every Student Succeeds”—these are the stirring titles given to a string of initiatives.

Some details differ, but common to all is a conviction that school problems are the result of internal weaknesses; poor teachers, bad principals, constraining union rules, and a lack of choice are the obstacles that must be overcome. The proven impact of external forces like poverty on student learning has been ignored. The consensus has been that radical change is necessary, that the traditional public school is no longer effective, and only disruptive change can cure the problems.

One of the Obama administration’s first efforts to move down this path was included as part of the $831 economic stimulus package passed to prod the economy back to life after the 2007 Great Recession. Within the $831 billion of stimulus investment was $100 billion focused on education. Part of this pool of funding was $3.1 billion for School Improvement Grants (SIG), which became “one of the Obama administration’s signature programs and one of the largest federal government investments in an education grant program.”

The SIG program awarded grants to states that agreed to implement one of four school intervention models—transformation, turnaround, restart, or closure—in their lowest-performing schools. Each of the models prescribed specific practices designed to improve student outcomes, including outcomes for high-need students.

Targeted at poorly performing schools, SIGs offered schools the choice of four highly disruptive strategies as the key to improvement. All the approaches see internal failure as the driving cause behind bad schools. They use test scores to sift out bad teachers from good, use charters to create better schools, and give tacit support to the attacks on the teachers’ unions many reformers have seen as essential to success. The U.S. Department of Education defined the strategies available to schools quite finely:

Sign up for our free newsletters

Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

  • Transformation. This model required schools to replace the principal, adopt a teacher and principal evaluation system that accounted for student achievement growth as a significant factor, adopt a new governance structure, institute comprehensive instructional reforms, increase learning time, create community-oriented schools, and have operational flexibility.
  • Turnaround. This model required schools to replace the principal, replace at least 50 percent of the school staff, institute comprehensive instructional reforms, increase learning time, create community-oriented schools, and have operational flexibility.
  • Restart. This model required schools to convert to a charter school or close and reopen under the management of a charter management organization or education management organization.
  • School closure. This model required districts to close schools and enroll their students in higher-achieving schools within the district.

A $3.1 billion carrot was waved in front of cash-starved schools to entice them to try these approaches. Almost eight years later, we can now see the results, and they do not support these strategies as a path to follow any farther.

Overall, across all grades, we found that implementing any SIG-funded model had no significant impacts on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment.

That’s the conclusion reached by a team of Mathematica Public Policy researchers working under contract for the U.S. Education Department. Because components of these approaches are part of many wider efforts, like the attempts in many states to use similar approaches to teacher evaluation and retention, these findings have broader relevance beyond the SIG program:

In particular, the school improvement practices promoted by SIG were also promoted in the Race to the Top program. In addition, some of the SIG-promoted practices focused on teacher evaluation and compensation policies that were also a focus of Teacher Incentive Fund grants. All three of these programs involved large investments to support the use of practices with the goal of improving student outcomes. The findings presented in this report do not lend much support for the SIG program having achieved this goal, as the program did not appear to have had an impact on the practices used by schools or on student outcomes.

Those who are convinced that the SIGs’ path was the right one will argue that these efforts failed not because the strategies were wrong but because the schools that tried to implement them did so badly, and that the right answer is to get better people on the job trying. While that is possible, maybe it’s time to consider that with eight years of experience behind these results, we should reassess our conclusions.—Martin Levine

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
About the author
Martin Levine

Martin Levine is a Principal at Levine Partners LLP, a consulting group focusing on organizational change and improvement, realigning service systems to allow them to be more responsive and effective. Before that, he served as the CEO of JCC Chicago, where he was responsible for the development of new facilities in response to the changing demography of the Metropolitan Jewish Community. In addition to his JCC responsibilities, Mr. Levine served as a consultant on organizational change and improvement to school districts and community organizations. Mr. Levine has published several articles on change and has presented at numerous conferences on this subject. A native of New York City, Mr. Levine is a graduate of City College of New York (BS in Biology) and Columbia University (MSW). He has trained with the Future Search and the Deming Institute.

More about: education reformNonprofit NewsPolicy

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

Join Today
logo logo logo logo logo
See comments

Spring-2023-sidebar-subscribe
You might also like
Cancelling Student Debt Is Necessary for Racial Justice
Kitana Ananda
To Save Legal Aid, Expand Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Zoë Polk
No Justice, No Peace of Mind and Body: The Health Impacts of Housing Insecurity for Black Women
Jhumpa Bhattacharya, Maile Chand and Andrea Flynn
The Human Impact of the Global Refugee Crisis Must Be Understood—And Acted Upon
Anmol Irfan
Black Americans Need Reparations: The Fight for the CTC Highlights the Roadblocks
Jhumpa Bhattacharya and Trevor Smith
Edgar Cahn’s Second Act: Time Banking and the Return of Mutual Aid
Steve Dubb

NPQ Webinars

April 27th, 2 pm ET

Liberatory Decision-Making

How to Facilitate and Engage in Healthy Decision-making Processes

Register Now
You might also like
Cancelling Student Debt Is Necessary for Racial Justice
Kitana Ananda
To Save Legal Aid, Expand Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Zoë Polk
No Justice, No Peace of Mind and Body: The Health Impacts of...
Jhumpa Bhattacharya, Maile Chand and Andrea Flynn

Like what you see?

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

See our newsletters

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

NPQ-Spring-2023-cover

Independent & in your mailbox.

Subscribe today and get a full year of NPQ for just $59.

subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Copyright
  • Careers

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.