Spencer Dang

Dr. Wiles
Honors Freshman Seminar
30 November 2015
Advocating Turnaround Districts
In 2001, President George W. Bushs most impactful education policy was signed into
law. While in principle, NCLB may have looked good, how it was enacted was far from what
educators hoped. The biggest criticisms of NCLB include that the policy encouraged teaching
to the test, that it detracted from the arts, and that it didnt provide the federal funding needed to
undertake such a macroscopic round of improvements. Moreover, the system of accountability
between the state and the school was inflexible and punitive. Even in schools that made
sweeping reforms, at the end of the day, all that mattered was the test score; did they pass or
not?
Todays incarnation of NCLB, or more broadly the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA), is President Obamas Race to the Top (RTTT) program. Unlike NCLB, RTTT
focuses on just the bottom 5% of schools. Under the RTTT program, schools must also improve
college-readiness and adopt a set of common standards or develop them with a state public
university. Moreover, the penalty system is more adaptable than that of NCLB. States may
choose one of four restructuring models. Of interest are just two of them, the turnaround
model and the restart model. The turnaround model replaces the principal, rehires no more
than 50% of teachers, and implements a new governance structure. These restructurings would
take place under the states Department of Education, most likely shifting the governance from
the local governing body to the state. The restart model transfers control to a school operator,
also allowing previously enrolled students to continue enrollment at the new school. Here,
school operators are typically charter organizations, known by a number of names with varying
specificities (Jost).

The proposed policy of a turnaround district is a combination of these two models

outlined in the RTTT program. The state would take over the lowest performing schools in the
state and bring their performance to an acceptable level, also allowing for a charter operator to
acquire the school. Since the turnaround district groups schools based on performance, the
implication for neighboring schools is that local governance can be supplanted if [the school
board] fails to deliver results for students stuck in lousy schools (Smith 7). Furthermore, the
accountability between teachers, schools, and the state is much stronger in this model. Ineffective
teachers can be fired much more easily in a charter school, while the charter school only continues
to exist if it meets its charter, which was made in conjunction with the states expectations. The
turnaround district model gives control of the lowest performing schools to the state and implements
charter schools where necessary, which may have a strong positive impact on the schools.

The first and largest turnaround district was formed in Louisiana. In the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana Department of Education was faced with the destruction of
almost 80% of its school facilities. Due to the uncertainty of education for many of the students
in the New Orleans area, the Louisiana Department of Education intervened, establishing the
Louisiana Recovery School District (RSD) in late 2005. The state run district consisted of the
worst performing schools, defined as those schools who did not meet the minimum academic
standard for four consecutive years. Of the 126 schools run by the local district, the RSD took
over 100 of them and has made good progress towards meeting the state average in
standardized testing. As of 2014, all schools in the Louisiana RSD are public charter schools.
In fact, data supports the notion that charter schools will serve as an effective tool for
both federal and state legislators to positively impact the bottom 5% of schools, particularly
those concentrated in areas of poverty. In the past, charter schools have 63.2% of students on
free or reduced lunch, compared to 48.1% of students in a Typical Public School (TPS). Charter
school organizations like the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) acknowledged 87% of their
students were eligible for free and reduced lunch. According to the CREDO study on charter

schools, black students in poverty who attend charter schools gain an additional 29 days of
learning in reading and 36 days in math per year over their TPS counterparts. Similarly, charter
schools serving Hispanic students in poverty show a positive impact, approximately 14 and 22
more days of reading and math instruction respectively (Raymond 74-77). The data on charter
schools indicates that they achieve their best results with disadvantaged minority students and
can be used effectively in closing the achievement gap.
Several concerns may arise naturally with the state takeover of a school. Among these
is the idea that charter schools are expensive and for-profit, causing them to be ineffective.
However, charter schools are on average spending at 64% of their TPS equivalent (Rebarber
9). Also, while charter schools are run for-profit, they may only run if they meet the academic
requirements of their charter. Recall that the NCLB prescription for a failing school was harsher
sanctions or shutting down. The turnaround district is a realistic solution to the problem.

My proposal is to implement turnaround districts consisting of the lowest performing schools in an area, letting
the governance shift to the state, and opening up the possibility of converting those schools into a charter
school.

Thoroughly research and propose a specific policy initiative to improve the public
education system in the United States. Write a paper proposing an evidence-based
policy, and use independent research and data to support your policy position.
Separately, create a poster that illustrates the data and your findings. The poster
should be clear, data-driven, and outline why your policy proposal is an optimal
solution to positively affect the education system.
Works Cited
Jost, Kenneth. "Revising No Child Left Behind." CQ Researcher 16 Apr. 2010: 337-60. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.1
"KIPP Report Card 2014." KIPP. Knowledge Is Power Program, 2014. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
Raymond, Margaret E., James L. Raymond, and Devora Davis. "Charter School Studies." CREDO. Stanford
University, 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
Rebarber, Ted. "Survey of America's Charter Schools." (n.d.): n. pag. Center for Education Reform. Center for
Education Reform, 2014. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
Smith, Nelson B. "Redefining the School District in America." (2010): n. pag. Fordham Institute. The Fordham
Institute, June 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.