In his speech to the national charter schools conference a few weeks ago, Secretary Duncan focused on the critical need to turn around approximately 5000 schools in the U.S. that he calls “chronically underperforming.” Talking about turning around failing schools is not new, but the candor, realism, and clarity of the Secretary’s speech was striking. This is one area where the Secretary’s experience leading Chicago Schools really pays off.
Over the past decade, we have consistently underestimated the difficulty of fixing persistently failing schools. This has allowed us to avoid doing the hard things that are most likely to succeed. Instead, we have poured millions of dollars and untold effort into the same old solutions, providing more professional development, more coaches, and more programs, even in the face of clear evidence that these approaches rarely transform low performing schools into high performing ones. Sometimes elementary schools can be turned around by talented and tireless new leaders, although my experience with New York City principals leads me to believe that this involves a good deal of luck, even when transformational leaders have been specifically trained for the job. And there is little evidence, anywhere, that a large, inner city, comprehensive high school with a long history of failure can be turned around without significant restructuring.
Secretary Duncan was very clear about the turnaround efforts that will be required for states to earn Race to the Top dollars. He said that many failing schools will have to be closed and students reassigned to newly created schools or better performing options. He specifically praised Hartford, Denver, New York, Oakland and D.C. as districts with the courage to close failing schools, and also referred to his own experience closing failing schools and opening new ones in Chicago.
The Secretary recognized that even when closure is clearly the best option for children, it is extraordinarily difficult. Citizens have enormous attachment to schools with long histories, especially high schools, which often overrides even the most persuasive evidence that children are not learning. More often than not, closing even the worst schools prompts bitter opposition. Moreover, opening new schools while closing old ones can be a difficult sell when overall budgets are declining. The temptation of School Boards is simply to close schools to save money. If there are not enough good options in the district, however, that simply won’t change things for children.
A second option mentioned by the Secretary was to displace all the staff of the failing school and either bring in new district personnel or turn school management over to an outside organization, such as a charter organization. He estimated that at least 50% of the staff must change in order to change the culture of a failing school. He also specifically mentioned those states where teachers unions have taken over and re-staffed failing schools. Since union opposition is the chief impediment to the re-staffing option, this is a constructive way to work with unions to do the right thing for children.
One thing the Secretary did not mention is that in many districts closing or re-staffing schools creates a significant new problem – dealing with displaced staff whose jobs cannot be eliminated. In many places, state law and/or union contracts require that in the event of any downsizing, teacher jobs must be eliminated in reverse seniority order. Keeping the displaced teachers on staff can create a significant financial drain, but if a district eliminates jobs, it must eliminate the jobs of the most recently hired teachers, including the ones that have been carefully selected to staff new schools or to re-staff turnaround schools.
(Note: This is nuts, right? Especially when we do not protect the quality of our workforce by removing ineffective teachers, as The New Teacher Project’s great study “The Widget Effect” points out. In my view, the requirement that teachers must be laid off in reverse seniority order, without regard to merit or performance, is the single most significant obstacle to improving urban schools. This requirement hampers almost all reform efforts, and ultimately leads to a virtual death spiral in districts with dramatic enrollment declines, as they periodically purge their newest hires, the morale of staff and funders who have supported reform efforts plummets, the districts become starved of new ideas and energy, and their workforces grow ever more expensive. I believe a legislative fix is needed. State laws should be changed, and the receipt of federal funds should be conditioned on the elimination of legal requirements that layoffs must be done in reverse seniority order without regard to merit.)
Finally, the Secretary acknowledged that schools can sometimes be turned around while leaving the existing staff in place. However, he made it clear that four conditions must be present: 1) a rigorous performance evaluation system along with more support, training and mentoring; 2) a strong new curriculum and instructional program; 3) increased learning time for children, including afternoons, weekends and in the summer, and more collaborative time for teachers; and 4) flexibility around budgeting, staffing and calendar. This is qualitatively different than what has passed for turnaround efforts in many districts in the past.
It is apparent we have clear-eyed, tough, insightful leadership in Washington. I hope we have enough of it in all the places it is going to be needed.