Join the conversation

I think that even by contemporary standards, the Hassel's post was so nuts I didn't want to deal with it. Thanks for bothering to respond.

Grand Calculations, indeed.

Let's say we can fix schools in one year! Yeah! That's the ticket! Then (figure, figure) we can save 92% of all schools! What if we could do it in six months? Spigots open!

You are spot on in your two benign observations--change does need to be decisive, comprehensive and bold, and we need lots more context-dependent, ground-level indicators of success. I do agree with the Hassels that five years to revitalize a school is a mythical number. Once the "proof numbers" start flying, however, most school reformers start forgetting about actual kids and actual teachers, the basic materials of educational change.

From the time any "turnaround specialist" takes on a failing school, the immediate goal becomes accruing evidence that the school is changing direction. The focus shifts to aggregate numbers, away from individuals, always looking for the big bump. The proofs become more important than the problem-solving, leading to short cuts and book-cooking (and the savvy reader does not need a list of cities where questionable numbers, and questionable testing practice, are now the norm because the clock is ticking).

The amount of time that it takes for any school (failing or simply stagnant) to change culture? The ever-popular "it depends." On the resources available, the capacity of the community (professional and surrounding), the quality of the tools, the strength of the current culture (for better or worse), and on how much hope for the future can be mustered.

OK, I get that schools aren't all the same, and that some schools can cook the books if everyone's out to get short term bump. But I don't see how it is that we're "forgetting actual kids or actual teachers" if we set a time limit on turnarounds.

NCLB proved that turn around strategies without any teeth or timelimits aren't turn around strategies at all. Just sitting back and waiting for schools to do all the right things doesn't work. The Hassels' calculations might be optimistic, but they admit that they can get "false negatives" and "false positives." The fact that some schools may slide back after a year or two just makes the short timeline all the more important. What happens if we just wait for the late bloomers? The vast majority will never bloom at all.

Tom--I still contend that the need to develop "early indicators" of performance is very important. As Anonymous notes, many turnaround strategies have languished for years, perhaps in part because expectations for change were so low.

Nancy--I agree with your assessment that the Hassels' numbers are over the top. They barely acknowledge the fact that schools "fixed" in year one might look a lot less "fixed" in year two--and that would make a pretty huge dent intheir pollyanna calculations. You're right to point to the pressures to show big signs of success right away, which can lead to all kinds of shenanigans.

But that would give me all the more reason to start creating a richer set of indicators of a turnaround school's performance early on in the process. First of all, we want some assurance that practices at the school are actually changing--and that the school has the capacity and resources it needs to change. These indicators shouldn't necessarily serve as a trigger to shut down a turnaround effort in only one year's time. But they should guide interventions to help the school succeed. And yes--if the school does not improve its practices despite interventions, then maybe it is time to try again.

The alternative is a black box approach: tell a school to turn itself around, and then wait for the test scores to soar. If they don't soar in the first year or two, then axe the leaders and try again. Of course, if the leaders know how to game the system--and you're right to point to many precedents here--they win the battle while students lose the war.

It strikes me that the Hassels' document could open up an important discussion about how to measure the performance of schools--taking outcomes, practices and working/learning conditions into account. I don't think we have such a performance measurement system now, but we sorely need one.

"It strikes me that the Hassels' document could open up an important discussion about how to measure the performance of schools--taking outcomes, practices and working/learning conditions into account. I don't think we have such a performance measurement system now, but we sorely need one."

Amen. And AMEN. The notion of throwing the bad guys out and replacing them with the flavor of the month new guys, is the "monkeys at typewriters" model. It ranks below the "stone soup" model.

An engineering orientation rather than a research orientation is applicable here. The standard methodology starts with a prospectus, and then tests a prototype to obtain "proof of concept." Without that, you ain't got nuthin. With this orientation, one has early indicators of performance at low cost and one can stay on top of an initiative at all times. "Turnaround" is a useless metaphor. And it's loony tunes when it's played to the melody of standardized achievement tests, which are insensitive to instructional differences and do nothing to illuminate the black boxes of instruction.