A Sustainable Turnaround Strategy Where Schools

Innovate and Children Can Grow and Thrive?

Paul PastorekSuperintendent

LouisianaJuly 22, 2009

Louisiana’s Recovery School District

LA: Good News/Bad News

Good News:Dedicated hard working educators Academic Achievement is up dramaticallyGap closing is significant

Bad News:50th in 4th grade ELA16,000 dropouts per year (5% of 7th through 12th graders)108 schools under Recovery School District; additionally, over 100,000 more children are below grade level (500+ schools (nearly 50 % of schools))

Assumptions

Positive: Most kids want to be successful in school and successful in life.

Positive: Most teachers, principals, administrators and parents want to help children to be successful in school so they can be successful in life.

Positive: Some of our schools successfully educate large numbers of children who are minority, poor and/or have inadequate parental support.

Negative: The education system is not designed to allow schools or educators to innovate.

Negative: There are many impediments to institutionalizing best practices in schools.

The Urgency of NOW

Far too many children are being failed by adults’ complacency to figure out a solution to failing schools.

We cannot be timid or incremental about correcting this problem.

We cannot shoot for perfect when dealing with failing schools. We cannot let “perfect” be the enemy of “good”.

We cannot be risk averse. We must take and manage risk. We must have low risk and high risk portfolio. If there is only little risk, there is little reward.

The School is the Center of Change and

Innovation

Neither state government, nor the district can “fix” the problem from the top down. Doing so, drives good leaders and educators away from schools.

Rather, the role of state government and the district should be to:

remove barriers to change and innovation and

provide quality support for the school to fix its own problems.

give flexibility and autonomy to the school to be the center of change and innovation (charter or “charter-like”).

hold schools accountable.

Recovery School District – A Turnaround Strategy

In its original conception, the Recovery School District was a very modest idea that was borne of the frustration of state policy makers with district failure to turnaround failing schools.

The original conception has since been shaped, molded and reconceived to respond to different stimuli and circumstances.

Recovery School District – A Turnaround Strategy

Prior to Katrina, LA created a Recovery School District where individual chronically failing schools (statewide) would be turned over to qualified charter school providers.

Why? School Reconstitution plans were

ineffective. Traditional state takeovers were largely

ineffective. Charter school offered important

possibilities: unfettered by state or local interference. true reconstitution. real local control

Recovery School District – A Turnaround Strategy

Place chronically low achieving schools under state control. Recovery School District becomes a “turnaround zone“.

State control meant that the state would control the building and the funds for the prior year student population.

All existing employees must re-apply for jobs in the school (with priority).

All obligations of the district to the school or its employees were abrogated.

Recovery School District – A Turnaround Strategy

Phase 1 - 4 New Orleans schools were placed in Recovery School District (RSD) prior to the storm and were chartered.

Phase 2 - Katrina – released the pent up frustration with the New Orleans Public Schools. Chronic district failure - 90% of schools in New Orleans to be placed in RSD.

Again, the idea was that “all” schools would be Charter Schools.

Clearly, this was an anomalous circumstance.

Recovery School District – A Turnaround Strategy

The state “authorized” many charter schools.

But, there weren’t enough quality charters to run the number of schools needed in NOLA.

Adaptive – we adopted a hybrid strategy – “traditional” central office running

traditional schools “traditional” central office authorizing and

holding charter schools accountable. All focused on New Orleans. Phase 3 - we recognized that we had

other schools in other parts of the state that were failing.

Recovery School District – A Turnaround Strategy

Over the next 2 years, first, 10 schools eligible; then, 33 schools eligible for takeover.

We had to measure capacity to takeover.

Adaptive - Concluded to takeover some, but place others into “receivership” via an MOU.

Takeover or “receivership” – but, the key was to: remove the barriers to change and allow the institutionalization of best

practices.

Key Strategies Rather than following the common

paradigm for school takeovers nationally – that is, taking over entire school districts with all their dysfunctions, central office bureaucracy, employees, and restrictive collective bargaining agreements - the RSD takes over only individual schools, their employees, their students and their funding.

Reconstitute the school as charter or charter like schools.

Willingness to use alternative school management models

Key Strategies Allow the

infusion/institutionalization of best practices.

Modify or Remove the rules. Most importantly, the Recovery

School District is transformed from being the top down management district office to a support entity.

External support entities are formed to provide alternative support to RSD.

What is Working Expanded choice attracts national education

entrepreneurs, improving schools through healthy competition, and expands quality options for parents and students.

Allowing schools to recruit and retain staff based on merit and performance (site selection) is producing a higher-quality workforce with higher expectations, a superior work ethic and content-area mastery.

A data-driven curriculum and instructional management system that is based on proven models.

More instructional time on task in the form of a longer school day and longer school year.

Establishment of local school leadership teams via TAP (Teacher Advancement Program).

Modernization of all core classrooms with tech- nology to help deliver instruction and facilitate interventions.

Change in “Percent Basic and Above”

RSD Spring 2008 to Spring 2009Grade Test ELA Math Scienc

eSS

3 iLEAP +5 +6 +12 +6

4 LEAP +8 +1 +11 +9

5 iLEAP +7 +6 +3 +5

6 iLEAP +16 +17 +10 +16

7 iLEAP +10 +15 +13 +13

8 LEAP +6 +3 +4 +2

9 iLEAP +13 +15 -- --

10 GEE +11 +18 -- --

11 GEE -- -- +6 +10

RSD Direct-Operated and Charter Schools Comparison of LEAP, iLEAP & GEE to State

GrowthGROWTH in

Students Scoring Proficient (Basic & Above)

ELAMath

ScienceSocial

Studies

Grade iLEAP 3 3 1 5 3

Grade LEAP 4 5 3 6 5

Grade iLEAP 5 6 5 (1) 4

Grade iLEAP 6 9 8 7 10

Grade iLEAP 7 9 7 7 (2)

Grade LEAP 8 1 2 2 (3)

Grade iLEAP 9 10 12 NA NA

Grade GEE 0 (2) (2) 8 Improvement No Change Decline

Graduation Rates by Individual School - 2007 to 2009

School 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

  # eligible # graduates % # eligible # graduates % # eligible # graduates %

G.W. Carver * * * 24 2083% 77 68 88%

Joseph S. Clark 66 26 39% 93 5559% 113 90 80%

Walter L. Cohen * * * 53 3158% 62 40 65%

Frederick Douglass 172 49 28% 81 42

52% 123 97 79%

John McDonogh 306 105 34% 137 10577% 116 104 90%

L.E. Rabouin 146 73 50% 144 8962% 223 162 73%

Sarah T. Reed 170 85 50% 132 10177% 189 138 73%

Algiers Technology * * * 14 11

79% 38 36 95%

O.P. Walker 221 206 93% 256 24495% 218 204 94%

  1081 544 50% 934 69875% 1159 939 81%

Note: This report only includes high schools with a senior class. An asterisk * denotes no senior class in this year.

Fourth Grade Results: Orleans + RSDPercent Meeting the Promotional Standard

2005 to 2009; State improved 6 percentage points; Orleans improved 15 points2008 to 2009: State improved 1 percentage point; Orleans improved 8 points

2005 48%

2006 41%

2007 48%

2008 55%

2009 63%

Eighth Grade Results: Orleans + RSDPercent Meeting the Promotional Standard

2006 to 2009; State improved 7 percentage points; Orleans improved 15 points2008 to 2009: State improved 3 percentage point; Orleans improved 9 points

2006 37%

2007 43%

2008 43%

2009 52%

Next Phase – Scaling Up, Including the District

Offices

Adaptive - Create district partnerships agreements between RSD and some or all of the 500+ chronically low achieving schools voluntarily agree to remove the barriers and institutionalize best practices.

Adaptive - Included in this, transform the participating district office to become like the RSD.

Thanks

Leslie JacobsPaul Vallas

LA’s Recovery School District

A turnaround zone where we:welcome and practice innovation

every day.respond to unforeseen or the

unexpected by adapting so that the enterprise can meet the needs of the schools we serve.

remove the barriers to change in schools so that schools can control their own destiny