KidsOhio.org, a highly respected education-policy group based in Columbus, released a fact sheet today on the schools that are eligible for a “parent trigger” intervention. Twenty schools in Columbus City School District have been identified, on the basis of falling within the bottom 5 percent in the state in student achievement for three consecutive years. In layman’s terms, these schools have enormous and persistent struggles with low student achievement.
The parent-trigger law, only applicable to Columbus district schools, permits four different interventions—from charter-school conversion to contracting with non-district entities to operate the school. The trigger is contingent on 50 percent of the school’s parents or guardians petitioning the school board for the change. As my colleague has pointed out, several issues muddy our judgment on whether parents and policymakers should actually use a trigger-based intervention.
But regardless of whether or not the parent-trigger is used, this group of schools—especially those with lower value-added scores—need to improve significantly. So one of the interesting things on the fact sheet was the hyperlinks to each school’s “improvement plan.”
But these “plans” can only be described as anywhere from meager to pathetic. Here is one example, from Mifflin Middle School’s improvement plan, rated D in performance index and F in value-added—a truly struggling school. (Note, I’ve looked at all twenty of the “improvement plans”; they all are generally of this quality—some slightly better, some worse.)
These are Mifflin’s “school goals”:
- Focus on trust and communication, with an overarching commitment to positive attitudes and an appreciation for diversity
- Every child reaches his/her full potential
- Learning environments are student-centered, data-driven, efficient, and stable
- Improve academic achievement in math
- Improve academic achievement in reading
- Teach students how to be socially and academically responsible
To be sure, these “goals” are admirable, desirable, generally nice aspirational statements—ones that we might find in an organization’s mission statement. But as goals, these statements have no substance. Where’s the specificity and measurability (e.g., how much improvement; and on what assessment)? How would anyone know whether these goals are realistic, attainable, or challenging? And how would anyone—parent or district administrator—gauge whether the school achieved any of these goals? Lastly, what about the time dimension, which can introduce a sense of urgency toward the goal? Setting organizational objectives is sound management practice. But the objectives also have to be well-crafted; the insipid statements above cannot be expected to motivate school personnel toward higher performance.
Now, let’s take a look at the school’s “strategies for improvement”:
- Introduce Leadership Training (advisory period) in homeroom to develop young minds and to focus on learning practices.
- Develop building-wide focus on vocabulary for reading and math to deepen understanding.
- Provide enrichment and intervention within class or in RICA from teacher generated data.
- Individualized learning programs using Interventionists for Reading and Math to increase student proficiencies.
- Content Coaches for Reading and Math to provide on-going Professional Development for classroom teachers to maintain high-level instructional practices.
Again, these “strategies” sound swell on the surface. But the question is: Have the school leaders, with the input of their staff, carefully scrutinized alternatives for improving student achievement? For example, have they critiqued their curricula or looked at other curricular options (especially in light of Common Core)? Have they examined how time is spent? What is their strategy for evaluating teachers? And how will they weed out weak teachers, while creating incentives for high-performers to stay (or recruiting new ones)? Have they visited any high-performing schools in Columbus—and tried to learn from them? Have they dug into any research on high-poverty, high-performing schools? Low-performing schools need bold strategies for change. But all told, those listed above appear to be formulaic, uncreative, and uninspiring—not exactly a blueprint toward reaching challenging objectives.
Low-performing schools need to have “improvement plans.” But they also need plans that will lead to organizational thriving and which are not exercises in bureaucracy. These plans don’t reach that level—and that ought to give us pause. The students who attend these struggling schools deserve better. They deserve bold reform plans designed to put an excellent teacher in every classroom with an excellent curriculum. If nothing changes, maybe parents should pull the trigger on these schools after all.
