A new report from the Center for Reinventing Public Education investigates state-initiated turnarounds, which are intended to improve student achievement in the lowest-performing schools or districts. Such interventions can be difficult to implement successfully and even more difficult to sustain after the initial goals have been achieved. To that end, the report examines ways states can ensure their turnaround strategies are effective and long-lasting.
In the introduction, author Ashley Jochim discusses how the Every Student Succeed Act puts the “responsibility for improving student outcomes” back in the hands of the states and enables them “to craft their own ‘evidence-based’ turnarounds.” However, she asserts that the evidence for such evidence-based turnarounds is sorely lacking. So to inform states about various strategies and the conditions needed for them to succeed, the report examines eleven different initiatives in eight states and how they affect student outcomes.
Jochim reviewed state policies, analyzed studies about the effectiveness of turnaround initiatives, and interviewed stakeholders, such as state chiefs, district staff, educators, and community groups.
In this sample, she identified five distinct types of state-initiated turnarounds: state-supported local turnaround, state-authorized turnaround zones, mayoral control, state-led school takeover, and state-led district takeover. (Studies on mayoral control did not meet the criteria to be included in the analysis, so the report only examines the other four.) For each, Jochim identifies whether it focuses on a school or a district, distinguishes who leads the turnaround effort, discusses the level of authority the state has in each type of approach, and gives examples of each strategy being utilized and the results.
Ultimately, the report identifies four key ingredients that are necessary for any of the five types of turnaround strategies to have a chance of success—will, authority, capacity, and political support. It finds all of the turnaround methods analyzed to be viable options, but emphasizes that each has its own strengths and weaknesses, which may lead to success in some locales but failure in others. States should therefore consider specific circumstances to find the best fit—factors such as local leadership, available resources and talent, and the extent or reach of the turnaround. No matter the path leaders choose, however, Jochim recommends it be based in evidence, aided by both local and outside stakeholders, and comprise multiple strategies. Massachusetts, for example, was the only state to use a combination of approaches, and it saw statistically significant math and reading gains in its Springfield Empowerment Zone Partnership.
The report provides valuable information for states looking to address the issues in low-performing schools and districts. Using multiples strategies and understanding the limitations and advantages of local factors can increase the likelihood of turnaround success and ultimately help children in low-performing schools get the quality education they deserve. Any state looking to undertake such a task should certainly use this report to become knowledgeable about the options out there.
SOURCE: Ashley Jochim, "Measures of Last Resort: Assessing Strategies for State-Initiated Turnarounds," Center for Reinventing Public Education (November 2016).
