Low-performing schools face tough love

What’s not to love about President Obama’s focus on turning around our nation’s lowest performing schools? Most Americans would agree that a good education makes us better workers and citizens. Our future labor force and voting public need strong critical thinking skills and knowledge of the world in order to be successful. But Obama’s methods of improving our national education system have caused a bit of controversy, and, as usual, the media is doing its part to fan the flames.


Take Danny Westneat’s column in Wednesday’s Seattle Times. In it, Westneat fires up the inflammatory language when describing what some struggling Washington schools are doing in order to win federal money:

Our latest plan to improve public schools is: Off with their heads!

Is this really what national school-reform efforts have come to? Your money or your teachers. Take your pick.

Westneat is referring to the choices available to low-performing, high-poverty schools who want to win up to $2 million a year for three years in federal grants to “transform” their school. Washington public schools that have scored in the lowest 5% of schools on their annual reading and math assessments (formerly known as the WASL exam) are eligible to apply. There are around 48 Washington schools on the lowest performing list.

So are these choices as horrible as he says?

Let’s take a look at the options. There are four available to troubled schools who want to apply for a federal grant, as outlined by the Washington Education Association (WEA), the state’s teachers union:

Turnaround model: Replace the principal and rehire no more than 50 percent of the staff, and grant the principal sufficient operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendar/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially improve student outcomes.

Restart model: Convert a school or close and reopen it under a charter school operator (not allowed in WA), a charter management organization (not allowed in WA), or an education management organization that has been selected through a rigorous review process.

School closure: Close a school and enroll the students who attended that school in other schools in the district that are higher achieving.

Transformation model: Implement each of the following strategies: (1) replace the principal and take steps to increase teacher and school leader effectiveness; (2) institute comprehensive instructional reforms; (3) increase learning time and create community-oriented schools; and (4) provide operational flexibility and sustained support.

The WEA is known to use the weight of its thousands of members to push back against school reforms threatening the status quo. Case in point: last year’s basic education finance reform that proposed a new teacher evaluation system. The union fought tooth and nail for its defeat.

This year, the teachers union is on board with President Obama’s school improvement strategy. It’s also behind a bill, Senate Bill 6696, putting these methods into law in order to make Washington eligible for federal Race to the Top grants.

The WEA doesn’t give its support lightly, but the fact that a nice chunk of money is involved doesn’t hurt. According to Education Week magazine, in 2007, Washington ranked 45th nationally in education spending per student. To make matters worse, last year about $800 million in state funding was cut from Washington’s public schools. We shouldn't be surprised that school districts are willing to try new things in order to find new revenue.

But Westneat does hit on some valid concerns. Does switching out teachers and principals really improve students' grades? What does this change do to student, teacher and community morale? Is it really smart to rely only on standardized tests to judge how students are learning?

Some parents and teachers in Seattle are questioning the Seattle School District's participation in the new federal strategy. You can take a look at some of their ideas at their Seattle Education 2010 website.

When he was head of the Chicago public school system, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan experimented with many of the same methods of school improvement that the federal Department of Education is now using. His track record is mediocre, but you can’t criticize him for not trying or caring. He implemented a slew of new programs and systems to improve high school graduation and college acceptance rates, pay teachers more and increase their training, and improve kids' reading, math and science skills.

The question is, are his methods really ready for prime time?

Danny Westneat likes what he hears from education professor and author Diane Ravich:

Stop scapegoating teachers and principals, she said. Go back to neighborhood schools so they again are a center of civic life. Stop teaching to multiple-choice tests. Put in a content-rich curriculum that includes the arts, science, history, geography, civics, foreign languages, literature and physical education. Tell parents to step up and stop blaming the system.

There are kernels of wisdom in there, but the truth is, there are no easy answers for high-poverty schools.

I hope President Obama has put his faith in the right man and his methods. Financially-stretched school districts shouldn't be used a laboratory for unproven ideas.