The Education Gadfly Weekly

Organizational restructuring is common practice for many private businesses, but few in public education have tried it (one exception can be found in Dayton--see here). That may soon change. The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandates restructuring for schools failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for five years in a row. (AYP requires that all student subgroups--economically disadvantaged, ethnic/minority, special education, etc.--also meet proficiency levels set by the state.)

So how to go about it? School Restructuring Under No Child Left Behind: What Works When? describes the available options. Under NCLB, school restructuring can take five forms: a turnaround, whereby the principal, the curriculum, and some staff are replaced in hopes of better results; chartering and contracting, whereby districts can outsource school operations to an outside entity; a state takeover, whereby the district turns a troubled school over to the state; and "other," which encompasses all remaining restructuring arrangements aimed at fundamental reforms.

What Works When? offers a step-by-step guide to each restructuring option (or at least the first four, as "other" remains a challenge simply to define)--complete with worksheets, checklists, and decision trees. Turnarounds are often the easiest route for many districts, provided a change-minded principal is available. Both chartering and contracting (depending on state charter laws) offer the benefits of using educational management organizations with track records of raising student achievement quickly.

Central to any restructuring efforts, regardless of the chosen route, is competent leadership. Reform leaders--whether found within districts or brought in from the outside--must be identified and engaged early in the restructuring process. To help, the guide provides tools to identify change-minded leaders. Yet, looking at the qualifications, many states could be in short supply. 

Ohio can waste little time searching for its cadre of reformers. Last year, 9 percent of schools rated "Excellent," 35 percent of "Effective" schools, and 69 percent of schools rated in "Continuous Improvement" by the state--over 1400 schools total--missed federal AYP goals. And as AYP targets continue to rise and become more difficult to meet, large numbers of school districts will be forced to consider school restructuring.

For districts across the state, indeed the country, this means sailing in uncharted seas. While What Works When? can't promise stakeholders safe passage, it may at least offer a lodestar for mapping the waters of serious school reform.

Download a copy of the report here.

Few can argue that college completion rates are depressingly low. Just 35 percent of the 4.1 million students entering high school will go on to earn a college degree. Luckily, pursuing a rigorous academic curriculum in high school (as set forth in Governor Taft's Ohio Core plan) greatly increases the likelihood high school students will obtain a college degree.

Yet it still may not be enough for low-income children. While over 60 percent of academically prepared higher-income students finish college, just 20 percent of similarly prepared low-income earn a bachelor's degree. And those that graduate do so at less selective colleges with less support and fewer prospects for academic success.

The Bridgespan Group's new report examines key factors that, when coupled with rigorous academic preparation, improve low-income students' prospects for finishing college. First among them is a student's expectation that he or she must attend college to pursue a planned career. Consider that low-income students who make the connection between college and career goals are six times more likely to finish college than those who don't. Other important factors are student peer cultures and knowledge of college requirements, including long-term financial commitments.

Sadly, college access supports, especially those supporting academic preparedness, are not widespread among low-income youth. While 52 percent of surveyed low-income eighth-graders expected to go to college, only 23 percent intended to pursue a college-prep curriculum in high school.

In addition to adopting and implementing a college-ready curriculum, recommendations for schools include creating a "college-going" culture--akin to what many KIPP schools do (see here and here)--and providing the infrastructure to aid students' transition to a college-ready curriculum. 

Ohio looks set to bolster its high school curriculum requirements with passage of the Ohio Core. School leaders and educators must supply the key supports low-income students need to meet them.

To read the report, click here.

It's no secret that Ohio's school funding system is deeply troubled (see here and here). But when it comes to ensuring its youngsters attend gleaming new district schools, Ohio is delivering. The state has dedicated almost $5 billion toward facilities construction since 1997--not counting local contributions from levy and bond issues. By the end of 2005, the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC), which oversees and disburses state funds for school facilities projects, had completed 411 buildings across the state, and well over 250 more projects are in design or currently under construction (see here).

There is good reason to be sanguine about such a flurry of activity. Beyond signaling an investment in future generations, new school construction or renovation--when coupled with a good instructional program--can pay dividends for student learning by providing suitable learning environments, deterring absenteeism, and keeping good teachers in classrooms (see here).

Yet too many students in Ohio's urban areas are not reaping the benefits of the state's ambitious school construction project.

Part of the problem stems from steep declines in enrollment in many urban districts as more and more students leave troubled district schools to attend charter schools or families relocate to homes in suburban districts. From 1997 to 2006, the five major urban districts (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo) lost over 52,000 students. Of the five districts, Cleveland lost 16,630 students over the nine year span, Cincinnati lost almost 11,000, and Dayton shed just under 10,000.

As a result, many districts have turned to new school construction as a strategy for drawing students back to their classrooms--so far, with mixed results. In Columbus, two new district elementary schools are drawing more students (see here) despite their ratings of Academic Watch, the equivalent of a "D." Yet in Cleveland only two of the district's seven new schools have reached capacity (see here). Cincinnati Public Schools will announce its revamped building plans in the face of grim student enrollment projections. And in Springfield, school board members recently discussed closing one of their brand new schools due to poor enrollment figures (see here).

At the same time, the 72,000-plus students now attending Ohio's charter schools get no benefit from the OSFC's efforts. State law prohibits charters from accessing facility dollars and as a result, they often operate in strip malls, converted church facilities, and even modular or portable buildings. While many state officials have strongly urged traditional districts to lease extra space to charter schools at market-rate, this is rarely the case. Thus, as urban districts race to complete more new schools, surplus school buildings lie fallow and even some new ones have too few students to fill them.

Such idle space is not only a waste of taxpayer dollars--often gleaned from hard-won levy or bond campaigns--but also a clear indicator of the strained relations between districts and charter schools. Yet while charters and districts may always compete for students (all the better, since competition can spur much-needed reform in both), they shouldn't, and indeed do not have to, compete for suitable school facilities.

So how do districts and charters find common ground where all students can benefit from new or renovated facilities? One answer is to provide incentives for districts and charters to partner. For instance, in exchange for leasing suitable facilities to charters at minimal rates, districts might be allowed to count charter students when applying for facility allotments (calculated on the basis of student enrollment), or even include charter students' test scores with those of the district. And charters should be provided incentives--perhaps the promise of cheap facilities or even new district school buildings--to strive for success beyond just enrolling students. Together, such incentives could encourage beneficial partnerships between districts and charters and refocus both state and local facilities projects on the important task at hand: providing suitable learning environments for all of Ohio's children.

Few can argue that college completion rates are depressingly low. Just 35 percent of the 4.1 million students entering high school will go on to earn a college degree. Luckily, pursuing a rigorous academic curriculum in high school (as set forth in Governor Taft's Ohio Core plan) greatly increases the likelihood high school students will obtain a college degree.

Yet it still may not be enough for low-income children. While over 60 percent of academically prepared higher-income students finish college, just 20 percent of similarly prepared low-income earn a bachelor's degree. And those that graduate do so at less selective colleges with less support and fewer prospects for academic success.

The Bridgespan Group's new report examines key factors that, when coupled with rigorous academic preparation, improve low-income students' prospects for finishing college. First among them is a student's expectation that he or she must attend college to pursue a planned career. Consider that low-income students who make the connection between college and career goals are six times more likely to finish college than those who don't. Other important factors are student peer cultures and knowledge of college requirements, including long-term financial commitments.

Sadly, college access supports, especially those supporting academic preparedness, are not widespread among low-income youth. While 52 percent of surveyed low-income eighth-graders expected to go to college, only 23 percent intended to pursue a college-prep curriculum in high school.

In addition to adopting and implementing a college-ready curriculum, recommendations for schools include creating a "college-going" culture--akin to what many KIPP schools do (see here and here)--and providing the infrastructure to aid students' transition to a college-ready curriculum. 

Ohio looks set to bolster its high school curriculum requirements with passage of the Ohio Core. School leaders and educators must supply the key supports low-income students need to meet them.

To read the report, click here.

Organizational restructuring is common practice for many private businesses, but few in public education have tried it (one exception can be found in Dayton--see here). That may soon change. The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandates restructuring for schools failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for five years in a row. (AYP requires that all student subgroups--economically disadvantaged, ethnic/minority, special education, etc.--also meet proficiency levels set by the state.)

So how to go about it? School Restructuring Under No Child Left Behind: What Works When? describes the available options. Under NCLB, school restructuring can take five forms: a turnaround, whereby the principal, the curriculum, and some staff are replaced in hopes of better results; chartering and contracting, whereby districts can outsource school operations to an outside entity; a state takeover, whereby the district turns a troubled school over to the state; and "other," which encompasses all remaining restructuring arrangements aimed at fundamental reforms.

What Works When? offers a step-by-step guide to each restructuring option (or at least the first four, as "other" remains a challenge simply to define)--complete with worksheets, checklists, and decision trees. Turnarounds are often the easiest route for many districts, provided a change-minded principal is available. Both chartering and contracting (depending on state charter laws) offer the benefits of using educational management organizations with track records of raising student achievement quickly.

Central to any restructuring efforts, regardless of the chosen route, is competent leadership. Reform leaders--whether found within districts or brought in from the outside--must be identified and engaged early in the restructuring process. To help, the guide provides tools to identify change-minded leaders. Yet, looking at the qualifications, many states could be in short supply. 

Ohio can waste little time searching for its cadre of reformers. Last year, 9 percent of schools rated "Excellent," 35 percent of "Effective" schools, and 69 percent of schools rated in "Continuous Improvement" by the state--over 1400 schools total--missed federal AYP goals. And as AYP targets continue to rise and become more difficult to meet, large numbers of school districts will be forced to consider school restructuring.

For districts across the state, indeed the country, this means sailing in uncharted seas. While What Works When? can't promise stakeholders safe passage, it may at least offer a lodestar for mapping the waters of serious school reform.

Download a copy of the report here.