Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
    • Think Again
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
  • Events
  • Scholars Program
Flypaper

School Turnaround in Queen City

School Turnaround in Queen City
8.4.2009

The banks of the Ohio river don't initially seem to be a hotbed of education reform.?? But the Cincinnati Public Schools is now??host to three school turnaround efforts, one of the most hotly debated and trendy education reforms as of late. Arne Duncan himself has allocated 545 million dollars of federal money in a call for the nation to turnaround the lowest 5% of its schools.?? Like many reform efforts in education, weighing in is difficult because there are so many unknowns regarding what makes a school turnaround successful. But a few pros and cons can be generalized. Drawbacks to turnaround efforts include: not having enough human capital (does Duncan expect to find 5,000 dynamic principals and a quarter of a million excellent teachers crawling out of the woodwork?), dramatic costs, lack of evidence to inform those spending our public dollars on turnaround efforts, and the potential for school closure or turnaround to erode community support (see Fordham's Andy Smarick's thoughts on the topic here, here, and here).?? The list could go on.?? But the pros, if not many, are compelling.?? School turnarounds are a logical consequence??for schools which have??languished in the state of Academic Emergency (such as Rothenberg Preparatory Academy, South Avondale School, and Mount Airy school in Cincinnati). They represent a follow-through to NCLB's mandates that districts and schools bring students up to proficiency. And one could make the argument that students and parents??deserve to be protected from grossly underperforming schools.??As Secretary Duncan said, "States and districts have a legal obligation to hold administrators and teachers accountable, demand change and, where necessary, compel it. They have a moral obligation to do the right thing for those children - no matter how painful and unpleasant."

Successful turnarounds are rare; Mastery Charter Schools??in Philadelphia, Green Dot in LA, efforts in Denver, Hartford, Pittsburgh have all been lauded by the Secretary of Education.?? What do these efforts have in common??? Is there a good model to be found for turnarounds? Do we have the capacity for large-scale turnaround efforts??? So far we don't know.?? But here in Ohio we'll be waiting and watching Cincinnati to find out.

Tags: Arne Duncan Cincinnati Cincinnati Public Schools Denver No Child Left Behind Act Ohio Philadelphia Pittsburgh
+3 More Show Less
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]