Vexing Issues

I read this week's assignment, and was overjoyed by its relevance to where I am right now. If you didn't read my previous blog post, my school is in the unenviable position of qualifying for SIG funds, as we are listed in the bottom 10 performing schools for the state. While we don't necessarily have the lowest SAT scores, we have declined in performance while other schools have increased. So... the question becomes, do we apply for the SIG knowing all the hoops we will have to jump through to receive the funding?

There are four models for receiving school improvement grants. Two models - closure and restart - are not options in Maine. Closure would require another in-district option with room for students (not happening!) and restart would mean shutting the school down and re-starting it as a charter school. While that may become an option with the new governance, in my district it doesn't seem like the public would support turning over the public school to an EMO. EMO is an educational management organization that would come in and oversee the charter school process.

This leaves two models available for SIG approval - transformational or turnaround. The transformational model includes replacing the current school administrator, developing teacher and school leader effectiveness through changing the evaluation system, tying student achievement to teacher evaluations, reforming instruction, increasing instruction time, and providing support through positions like instructional coaches and literacy specialists. The turnaround model on the other hand requires replacing the school administrator as well as 50% of the faculty, adopting new governance, and re-designing instruction.

This is a vexing issue to me. First of all, the measure of student success is a poor measure. While I know we shouldn't blame it on the test, one cannot deny that even CollegeBoard recommended we don't use the SAT as our state measure of student achievement. This is not what the test was designed for, and we are literally laughed at at conferences when we discuss our schools being judged based on SAT data. I was part of the state's data coach training process this past year, and the trainers hired out of Massachusetts were appalled that we use the SAT to measure all students and gauge our school's effectiveness.

Secondly, when schools decide to apply for the funds, as they invariably do, one of the components of either plan is to replace the principal. While I can see replacing a poor leader, in the few cases I have come across, quite often a great leader is removed from his or her position, and an unknown variable is introduced into a struggling school. We are going to be losing an experienced, caring, motivated and motivating individual who knows our struggles, successes, and history. Without knowing who will apply and be part of the candidate pool, I can say with confidence that we will either promote from within the system (which is not really the intended transformation intended in the grant plan) or gain a totally new leader who will need to learn us, learn our school, learn our students, and learn our challenges before they can effect change - if they can effect change. The unfortunate fact is that we often lack candidates for any administrative position - we cannot find a superintendent right now, so now we will be in the position of needing district leadership as well as building leadership!

I am sorely vexed by this issue. I understand the intent of SIG and AYP - I understand the inadequacy of some student public education opportunities, and the inequalities from school to school or student group to student group. I believe there is a way to bring all schools up to a higher level of achievement, but I truly do not believe this is the answer, for so many reasons. On the state level and the federal level, there are some major issues with how NCLB measures schools and utilizes its sticks and carrots to "motivate."