User:Losmaestros

In 2009, with a significant increase in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the looming deadline of NCLB, the Obama Administration announced an additional $3.5 billion would be given to the U.S. Department of Education in order to began a campaign targeted at increasing student achievement in the lowest-performing schools across the United States. In order to do this, the U.S. Department of Education began to offer large sums of money called School Improvement Grants (SIGs) to various state education agencies (SEAs) specifically for the purpose of improving low-performing schools. After receiving the grants, SEAs re-allocated these funds to the local education agencies (LEAs) of those school districts with the lowest-performing schools. In order to actually receive and utilize funds from SIGs, an LEA had to adhere to one of four generic models or strategies designed to “turn around” a school’s performance. The Turnaround Model is one of the four strategies that an LEA can choose to implement in and effort to raise student achievement at schools in its district, per a 2009 Department of Education initiative.1 Though the Turnaround Model shares the name with the overarching initiative to turn around the lowest achieving schools in the nation, the model is a  particular strategy within the greater initiative.2

Policy History
The turnaround initiative stems back to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 which was enacted by Congress under the Johnson Administration. The bill was designed in part to emphasize equal access to education and excellent educational opportunities for all children. Even though the bill was originally only authorized until 1970, it has been reauthorized every 5 years by Congress since 1970. In 2002 ESEA experienced its most significant reauthorization under the George W. Bush Administration in which it was not only reauthorized, but renamed No Child Left Behind (NCLB).3 NCLB operates with the same charge as ESEA, but focuses on closing “student achievement gaps by providing all children with a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.#”  NCLB also required states to create academic state standards and a testing system to measure students’ progress against these standards. Additionally, NCLB pushed accountability for all students and flexibility at the district level, meaning that even students who are at a socioeconomic disadvantage meet state standards and that districts are able to use federal funding as needed in their area. But unlike ESEA, NCLB introduced a requirement that by the year 2014 100% of all students would be Proficient in Reading and Math.4 As the deadline for 100% Proficiency in Reading and Math has continued to quickly approach, it became increasingly obvious that unless there was a drastic change, the U.S. would not reach its 100% target. For this reason, the Obama Administration was prompted to create the SIGs and the four models for turning around the lowest performing schools as a means to incentivize school revitalization. 5

The actual TurnAround Model was originally used by the Chicago Public School System in 2008.6 Under then Chief Executive Officer Arne Duncan, the Chicago Public School System implemented the TurnAround Model as one of three initiatives to address the incredibly large number of low-performing public schools. The success of TurnAround Model boosted led President Obama’s selection of Duncan as U.S. Secretary of Education in Janaury of 2009.6 With the $3.5 billion surplus of money for the U.S. Department of Education, Duncan was a huge proponent and positive force in the creation and implementation of SIGs for low-performing schools.

Policy In Action
When a school is given a turnaround grant, it is expect to reach its Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) goals within three years. Because this policy is new and there is no precedent in how schools can push their students to reach AYP, districts and principals are given a sense of freedom in their methods to reach this goal. There have, however, been several models for this process from schools and districts that have attained “turnaround.”

One example of a model school which has achieved a turnaround is Central High School in the Southern United States. With a school in a rural environment (fitting the pattern of low socioeconomic schools), Central High School achieved a “turnaround” their proficiency rates from 11% to 71%8. There are many ways to reach this goal (formal structures, inquiry based learning, etc.), but Central focuses on the use of Professional Learning Communities (PLC). These PLCs provides a structure way for staff members to reflect, examine, and improve their teaching and learning strategies. 9 Strategies like PLCs provides a starting point that are used in implementing the turnaround within schools.

Policy Evolution
Since the School Improvement Grant was implemented in 2009, it has not undergone significant changes. Even though the grant continues to increase in size, the structure of the grant has not changed. Thus the size and distribution of the grants have been the only changes over the past two years. Out of 15,277 schools that were eligible for a grant, only 1,128 schools were awarded the grant8. Even though the need for funding for failing schools is high, only 7.3% of those schools are awarded these improvement grants. In addition, only 20% of the total school funded are identified as TurnAround7. Most of the schools identified either have a high population of minority students or high population of students from a lower socioeconomic background. Because the turnaround model was only introduced nationwide in 2010, there have not been documented official changes to the model. While the way in which this model is implemented surely varies from school to school and from state to state, changes in the inherent structure that mandates that the principal and at least half the school staff are replaced has not. The policy has been criticized and reform has been recommended#, but no governmental action has taken place to change the parameters of the program.

Policy Implementation
Judging from firsthand interviews with teachers that were working at different turnaround schools in Prince George’s County, Maryland, it is apparent that the implementation of the TurnAround model varies greatly from school to school even in the same county. Some schools such as Drew-Freeman Middle School and Benjamin Stoddard Middle School are staffed with over 80% new staff members due to the restructuring that took place as part of the TurnAround Model implementation. In all interviews, teachers expressed confusion over the accountability aspect of the TurnAround Model at their school, and most were unfamiliar with the actual details of the implementation process.10