Flypaper readers are aware of my stand against the turnaround bandwagon. We instead should close persistently failing schools and open new ones with the DNA for success.
Though I've given praise to Secretary Duncan for a number of things, his belief that we can turn around 5,000 failing schools is terribly misguided for a number of reasons. Apart from his treatment of the Opportunity Scholarship Program, I think the most distressing and imprudent decision of his tenure was his speech at the 2009 National Charter Schools Conference, when he pressured the nation's high-performing CMOs to change what they do (start great new schools) and get into the turnaround business.
I was reminded of this today with news out of California. While I admire Green Dot's work and commitment to disadvantaged kids (including founder Steve Barr's prickly relentlessness), the PR surrounding their attempt at a turnaround at Locke High School has gotten far ahead of the results. People routinely point to this venture as evidence of the enormous potential of the turnaround process.
Test scores are out in CA, and, in the words of the LA Times, Locke's scores are "flat" and "dismal by any standard." Editorial here.
It is admirable that Green Dot was willing to give this a shot, and there are other signs that things aren't as bad as they were, like reduced truancy. ????But if this is the best example of a successful turnaround, should we be spending billions of dollars on this?
No. Let's do what made Green Dot a success to begin with. ????And KIPP. ????And Achievement First. ????And Uncommon Schools. And Aspire. And YES Prep. And IDEA Public Schools.
Start new schools.