One of the most serious problems in American education is the persistently low-achieving school, one that despite substantial attention and efforts over the years fails to make significant progress on test scores and other indicators. My colleague Robert Balfanz calls high schools like this “dropout factories,” but there are persistently low-achieving elementary and middle schools as well.
For many years, localities, states, and the federal government have tried a variety of carrots and sticks to try to improve these schools. Most recently, persistently low-achieving schools have been eligible for substantial School Improvement Grants (SIG), but to get them they have to choose among four draconian alternatives, including school closure, turning the school over to a charter operator, or replacing the principal and at least half of the staff. Most SIG schools choose a “transformation” alternative in which the principal is replaced and the school receives extensive professional development. Yet a recent analysis of SIG data from the U.S. Department of Education shows success is spotty and elusive for these schools, especially considering the billions of dollars spent on them.
Designing replicable “transformation” programs to help persistently low-achieving schools would seem to be essential, yet it has not happened. A few years ago, the Institute for Education Sciences put out a request for applications to create and evaluate whole-school designs for turning around persistently low-achieving schools, but inexplicably, they did not fund any of the proposals they got and never issued another RFA on the topic. Whole-school reform models developed and evaluated in the 1990s are almost all gone, due to opposition by the Bush administration. Some of these had excellent evidence of effectiveness, but this did not matter. These models were not even mentioned in an IES-produced practice guide on turnaround programs, for example. As a result, schools now receiving SIG funding are mostly making up their own strategies, often with the help of consultants. Some of these home-grown strategies may work, but we won’t know which ones, or why.
- Slavin: Overcoming Four Barriers to Evidence-Based Education - May 6, 2013
- Sputnik: Taking the guesswork out of policy - January 15, 2013
- Sputnik: Effect size matters in educational research - January 9, 2013
- Sputnik: Technology without supports – like cotton candy for breakfast - January 4, 2013
- Sputnik: Transforming Low-Performing Schools - December 13, 2012
- Sputnik: - November 12, 2012
- Sputnik: It’s the Right Time to do the Right Thing - November 2, 2012
- Sputnik: Sunset for Textbook Adoption in California - November 2, 2012
- Sputnik: What the Presidential Election means for Evidenced-based reform - October 25, 2012
- Sputnik: Won’t Back Down – Union-bashing goes Hollywood - October 12, 2012