More than a year after the U.S. Department of Education supercharged the program targeting the nation鈥檚 lowest performing schools, with an influx of cash and a big makeover of the governing rules, states and districts are sorting through a thicket of practical and logistical issues.
Many of the challenges stem from navigating the four school improvement models outlined in federal regulations, which have been criticized as too restrictive.
But, states and schools also are grappling with the general difficulty of accomplishing an already mammoth task鈥攖urning around schools that have demonstrated chronically poor academic outcomes鈥攚hile making major changes on a relatively tight time frame.
鈥淭he biggest challenge is that this is a new grant for everyone. It鈥檚 a new process,鈥� said Sarah Pies, a Title I specialist for the Indiana education department. 鈥淲e鈥檙e trying to get everybody to think outside the box about what they can do. We鈥檙e lighting a fire underneath all of them.鈥�
More than 730 schools across the country are participating in the program this academic year, according to the Education Department. The program was initially authorized under the nine-year-old No Left Child Behind Act, but it received a significant rewrite鈥攁nd funding boost鈥攚hen Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in early 2009. That legislation included $3 billion for the program that could be spent over three years.
With the influx of new money came new restrictions. The regulations spelled out four possible models for schools to employ. In nearly all cases, they must replace the principal, unless that person has been on the job less than three years.
States, districts, and schools are still finding their way when it comes to implementing the models, coping with everything from the difficulty of finding new staff members to replace those that are removed to barriers to extending the school day.
To help tailor the models to local conditions, some states report they are urging districts to see the four options as a jumping-off point, not a step-by-step road map for school improvement.
鈥淭here鈥檚 a lot of conversation across the country that the four models don鈥檛 work,鈥� said Dan Cruce, the deputy secretary of education in Delaware. 鈥淏ut the name of the model is just the name of the model. It鈥檚 what you do with the plan鈥� that matters, he said.
鈥楾ransformational鈥� Model
By far, the most popular of the four approaches spelled out is the so-called 鈥渢ransformational鈥� model, considered by many to be the most flexible.
Turnaround Models
The Center on Education Policy surveyed 42 states and the District of Columbia on the average state level percentage of stimulus SIG grantees using various models. The survey was conducted in October and November 2010.
Kinds of Support
The Center on Education Policy, surveyed state Title I directors on how they planned to support schools receiving a School Improvement Grant under the federal economic-stimulus program and on which of four turnaround models they are using. Forty-铿乿e states and the District of Columbia responded to the survey, conducted from November 2010 through early January.
SOURCE: Center on Education Policy
It calls on schools to try out new educator evaluation methods that rely on measuring students鈥� academic growth, putting in place new instructional
strategies, extending learning time, creating community-oriented schools, and offering operational flexibility.
The second-most prevalent model is the 鈥渢urnaround option鈥� which calls for replacing at least 50 percent of a school鈥檚 staff, adopting a new governance structure, and implementing a new or revised instructional program.
Less popular were the options to close a school down entirely and send the students elsewhere, and the so-called 鈥渞estart鈥� model, which calls for closing a school, and reopening it under the management of a charter school operator, a charter-management organization, or an educational management organization.
Both of the schools Delaware selected for the SIG program are using the transformational model, but each is putting its own spin on transformation, Mr. Cruce said.
For instance, Seaford Senior High School in Seaford, Del., has decided to partner with New Tech, a Napa, Calif., based nonprofit organization that works with schools to focus on technology and project-based learning.
Even as states and districts strive to put a local twist on the models, they must work out some nuts-and-bolts issues.
Many are still grappling, for instance, with the difficulty of extending learning time, a strategy required under the transformational model. Schools that might want a longer academic day must contend with collective-bargaining agreements and busing schedules, state education officials said.
鈥淔or some districts, transportation is king,鈥� said Sue Moulden-Horton, a Title I consultant for the Nevada education department. 鈥淭o have one or two schools in the district saying, 鈥榃e want to change our bus schedule,鈥� that鈥檚 going to have a snowball effect.鈥�
Most Nevada schools opted instead to reconfigure their schedules so that students receive more instructional time, instead of actually adding minutes to the day, she said.
One exception was Kit Carson Elementary School in Las Vegas.
Principal,Cynthia Marlowe, who was hired last spring, had also hoped to build additional time into the school day this academic year. But by the time her school鈥檚 SIG plan was finalized, it was too late to make revisions to collective-bargaining agreements, which govern teachers鈥� work hours.
Instead, Ms. Marlowe expanded learning time in other ways, including by adding an hour of tutoring at the end of the day. Teachers from Kit Carson and other nearby schools were compensated separately for staffing the program.
All but ten of Kit Carson Elementary鈥檚 more than 200 students participate in the afterschool program, she said. Next year, however, the school will build extra minutes into the day.
In Louisiana, schools that were actually able to add minutes to the school day got a leg up in a competitive application process, said Rayne Martin, the director of the Louisiana education department鈥檚 office of innovation.
But that doesn鈥檛 mean schools that couldn鈥檛 work around the issue were left out in the cold, she said.
鈥淭ransportation costs are real and there is a real concern about that,鈥� she said.
So, like Nevada, the school gave consideration to applicants who were able to specify how they would maximize learning time.
Staffing Is Challenge
Other schools are having trouble finding effective teachers and leaders to work in low-performing schools, said Caitlin Scott, a consultant for the , a research and advocacy organization in Washington. Ms. Scott wrote a report examining the implementation of the SIG program in Michigan.
鈥淭he transformation and turnaround models often have roles for new employees or for existing employees to be repositioned as instructional coaches,鈥� she said. But it can be difficult for schools to 鈥渇ind someone who is qualified and ready to fill that position, who fits into the culture of the school, who other teachers would accept as an expert.鈥�
In some cases, turnaround schools haven鈥檛 had their first pick of new staff members, she added.
One of the schools Ms. Scott studied鈥擯hoenix Academy in Detroit鈥攃hose the turnaround model, which requires new staffing.
But the principal, Norma Hernandez, had to select new hires from the pool of teachers that were in the process of being removed from the district鈥檚 other turnaround schools, Ms. Scott said. On top of that, the hiring process was completed at the end of the summer under tight time constraints.
鈥淚f you don鈥檛 have access to a good pool, you can spend a lot of time rehiring and not actually have changed what鈥檚 going to happen,鈥� Ms. Scott said.
For her part, Ms. Marlowe, whose Las Vegas school is also using the turnaround model, ended up having to replace nearly all the teaching staff last spring.
She had some help from district officials in screening potential educators. Still, she found that a number of potential candidates were simply looking to get out of their current situation and didn鈥檛 fit with her vision for a new elementary school. Observations and references, she said, helped her weed those teachers out.
Overall, she鈥檚 happy with her choices.鈥淚 think I got very lucky with a lot of my teachers,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey knew what they were getting into and signed up for the challenge.鈥�
The vast majority of the teachers will return next year, she said.
Some states are stepping in to help schools and districts address staffing needs.
Louisiana鈥檚 education department, for instance, is trying to help schools navigate this tricky issue by creating a state-run teacher pipeline, Ms. Martin said.
Schools can contact the state to gain access to pre-screened, pre-interviewed candidates.
鈥淵ou literally call up,鈥� Ms. Martin said. 鈥淲e send five or six names for every vacancy.鈥�
So far, the state has placed nearly 85 teachers, she added.
And, as part of its process in choosing SIG schools, Louisiana required districts to explain how they plan to help those chosen to recruit and select effective staff, Ms. Martin added.
But, she said, if schools feel they don鈥檛 yet have a good way of identifying which teachers should remain on staff, they鈥檙e encouraged to choose the transformational model, which doesn鈥檛 require that a particular number of teachers be removed.
That way schools can 鈥渕ake the right decisions over time about who should be in the building,鈥� Ms. Martin said.
Crafting new teacher evaluation systems for schools that are doing the transformational model has also been a puzzle for SIG schools, state education officials said.
鈥淭he evaluation piece is probably the kicker,鈥� said Ms. Moulden-Horton, the Title I director in Nevada. 鈥淭hat has been a struggle for all of our districts.鈥�
That鈥檚 partly because it can be tough to create an evaluation for just one or two schools in a district, she said.
Some states, such as Delaware and Massachusetts, are coping with that thorny issue in part by revamping the procedure for all teachers statewide.
In the Bay State, for instance, SIG schools will be among the first to test-drive the teacher evaluation system that will eventually be implemented statewide, said Karla Baehr, a deputy commissioner.
Still, just a year into the program鈥檚 implementation, Ms. Bush and officials in other states say that they are pleased overall with the progress they鈥檙e beginning to observe.
鈥淪eeing schools really begin to change the climate and atmosphere has been very encouraging,鈥� said Ms. Pies, the Indiana Title I specialist said.
