Perceiving school reform as a process, not an event

Back in February the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research published a report called “Turning Around Performing Schools in Chicago.” This report summarizes the findings from a research study that examined five different reform models initiated by the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) between 1997 and 2010 in 36 elementary and high schools identified as chronically low performing. The five reform models examined are: reconstitution (staff and leadership replacement), school closure and restart (staff/leadership replacement, governance replacement, change in attendance rules), school turnaround specialist program (leadership replacement), academy for Urban School Leadership (staff/leadership replacement, governance replacement) and Office of School Improvement (staff/leadership replacement).

While turnaround models to radically alter the educational landscape of the worst-performing schools have receive a great deal of attention, there has been little rigorous research on the impact of such reforms. Considering the lack of research, this report aims to provide answers to common questions regarding turning around low-performing schools, such as the demographics of students in the schools after intervention, teachers in the schools after intervention, and student outcomes in the schools after intervention.

Although this report makes clear how school reform occurred, and what actual changes came along with each of the intervention (reform model) in schools (i.e., teaching staff was less experienced in most schools after reform; the Closure and Restart model schools that were less likely to serve their original student population had substantially higher student outcome after reform; turning around reform models showed less success at the high school level than at the elementary level), this study does not provide answers to which aspects of reform are most critical to success or report student progress after the first four years of post reform. The fact that this study cannot determine exactly why improvements came about, however, highlights the important point that school reform is a process rather than an “event.”

Perceiving school reform as a process is particularly echoed in the fact that there were adequate data to analyze the effectiveness of the different turnaround models years after they were first implemented. While I hoped to find definite answers to the questions I had regarding school reform through reviewing this report, I am actually reminded by the data presented that the picture is very complex and can support many interpretations.

Although further research is needed to address the knowledge gap that exists on school improvement models, this report does confirm that realistic approaches that can be implemented in all schools, such as building the skills and knowledge of those individuals responsible for student learning, engaging the staff and community in setting goals, and targeting immediately addressable problems are good efforts to turn around low-performing schools.

 The report: http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Turnaround%20Report%20-%20Long%20Version%20FINAL.pdf