Abstract
While some legislators believe that closing failing schools is the smarter choice, many schools can be turned around with strong leadership, effective communication, and immediate action.
Trying to turn around failing schools has become the newest academic cottage industry, with many colleges and universities taking on this work. Apparently, they haven't heard Joseph Murphy's sobering suggestion that “not all failing schools are worth saving” (2010).
“When a school is facing failure, sometimes fighting to restore what shouldn't be saved is neither wise policy nor in the best interest of youngsters,” Murphy contends.
That sentiment receives strong support from a recent study of charter and traditional public schools done by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “Few low-performing schools in either sector — barely 1% — managed to dramatically improve their academic performance over this five-year period, and fewer than 10% made even moderate gains,” the authors said. “We conclude that it is easier to close a low-performing school than to turn one around. Rather than pushing dubious turnaround efforts, charter authorizers and education policy makers alike should ramp up their efforts to close bad schools, particularly in cases where higher-performing schools are nearby” (Stuit, 2010).
How should educators and the public respond to the suggestion that most failing schools either need a complete makeover or aren't worth saving? And what message are we sending the students and parents of such schools, and their respective communities in general, if we allow them to believe their schools should be kicked to the curb or used as a research laboratory? Hearing that America's students are becoming less competitive globally with each successive year is depressing enough, but it's worse to hear that we should either reinvent how schools operate or give up on some schools because the turnaround task is simply too daunting.
Most failing schools are the product of poor leadership and improper management — nothing more, nothing less.
I don't dispute the Fordham Institute's findings, nor do I disparage university efforts to save failing schools, but I vehemently disagree with their all-or-nothing approach. My experience with failing schools, coupled with my research on this subject, have led me to the sobering conclusion that most failing schools are the product of poor leadership and improper management — nothing more, nothing less. Furthermore, there's ample evidence that bona fide education leaders, supported by motivated and highly qualified teams of teachers and administrators, are not only capable of transforming failing schools, they can make them successful within three to five years. First and foremost, we must acknowledge that only the best school principals and the best classroom teachers are capable of doing this difficult work. As Heather Peske and Kati Haycock said clearly, “The very children who most need strong teachers are assigned, on average, to teachers with less experience, less education, and less skill than those who teach other children” (2006). My experiences show that this logic is unfortunately applied to school leaders as well.
Turnaround experience
Since my retirement from the Marine Corps almost 10 years ago, I've been privileged to assume the leadership role at two failing charter schools in North Carolina, and I'm currently consulting for a third. In each case, students' academic performance as measured by North Carolina's high-stakes tests was abysmal at the outset. In addition, the average free or reduced lunch rate of the three schools was 75% (ranging between 50% at the first school and 90% at the last one).
When I arrived at my first school (K-8) in 2002, only 43% of the students were at grade level on the statewide exam; in the second school (K-8), fewer than 30% of the students were at grade level in 2006; and, in my current school (K-12), just over 20% of the middle/high school students and only 50% of the elementary students were at grade level in 2010.
The results: After three years, 79% of students in my first school were at grade level; in my second school, the figure was 64% after three years; and after one year at my current school, almost 36% of the middle and high school students and more than 80% of the elementary students are at or above grade level.
Do I have a miracle cure for failing schools? Yes, a great team of motivated, highly qualified teachers and administrators — all of whom are focused on student achievement, possess a strong work ethic, and won't accept failure as an option.
Before accepting the leadership position at each school and during my initial interviews, I tried to understand why the schools were failing in the first place. Unfortunately, most people were quick to blame specific individuals, the lack of resources, or No Child Left Behind. But none of these reasons had anything to do with their poor performances. Although each school faced a variety of different challenges, one theme was universal — a complete and utter breakdown in instructional and organizational leadership. School leaders had provided no clear direction, teachers and staff were demoralized, students were apathetic toward learning, and teachers had developed cliques that discouraged good performance. Gossip was the primary form of communication. Parents complained but no one offered to help, and few teachers and students were focused on teaching or learning. In essence, each school had a culture of failure, and students gladly rose to teachers' low expectations. I was also taken aback by the number of teachers who pulled me aside to say, “The only thing I want from you is the opportunity to teach.”
As a result of my experiences at these schools and based on the current literature dealing with school turnaround efforts, I believe that most teachers want principals to take charge immediately and make the necessary changes without delay. While there's a time and place for collaborative leadership, trying to lead by consensus while the ship is sinking is not good leadership. I agree with James MacGregor Burns who said, “One of the most universal cravings of our time is a hunger for compelling and creative leadership” (1978, p. 1).
Most people believe leadership is an art that can be mastered by almost anyone. In fact, this is not the case. Such logic may explain why we have so many failing schools. Educators tend to subscribe to the ideas of educators and authors like Gordon Donaldson who argues for collaborative leadership — where principals and teachers share responsibilities schoolwide (2006). Most teachers, however, don't see themselves as leaders and are often uncomfortable being called upon for such work (Mascall & Rolheiser, 2007). When a school is in trouble, teachers are perfectly content to let the principal take full responsibility for almost every operational and instructional aspect of the school. But teachers appreciate a firm, no-nonsense style of leadership — one that creates a stable, safe, school environment and provides them the opportunity to teach. Teachers want a leader who is not afraid to make the difficult decisions and, if necessary, terminate the employment of nonperformers.
Each school had a culture of failure, and students gladly rose to the teachers' low expectations.
Save failing schools
Doctors and nurses who work in hospital emergency rooms are noted for their inherent sense of urgency. They believe every patient can and must be saved. They have strong faith in their ability to do that work. School leaders must have similar beliefs about failing schools. The right school leader will always act with a sense of urgency and believe that his or her failing school can and will be transformed. Such leaders will break down the transformation process into two stages: immediate action that stops the bleeding; rehabilitation that prepares for a full recovery.
Stage I — Act now!
The first lifesaving step when someone is seriously injured is to stop the bleeding. The same concept applies to failing schools. Make sure someone is in charge, staff and teachers are focused on the primary academic mission, student discipline is under control, and parents understand that change is under way. This can only be done if you have the right leader at the helm. William Robinson and Leann Buntrock say that, “Without a doubt, high-impact school leaders are critical to turnaround success, and pockets of success around the country demonstrate this” (2011, p. 22). Hire the right school leader, and give him or her authority to make changes that will bring order and stability to the school. The new school leader must take several steps to stop the bleeding.
Teachers are often overwhelmed by the volume of data on student learning and often don't know to interpret the data to address individual student needs.
The leader is responsible for ensuring that everyone understands the school's purpose, goals, and objectives. The leader must take every opportunity to remind teachers and staff about their leadership roles and responsibilities at the school. They need to know why they come to work each day and the positive difference they make in the lives of their students. To do this, they need to know the school's mission and vision. They need to be able to answer a fundamental question: Why am I here, and how will I make these students successful?
Collaborative leadership comes later, when you have the luxury of time. Initially, however, a leader must “act.”
My experiences show that poor performing teachers have low expectations of their students, are uncomfortable teaching students who are below grade level, have preconceived prejudices about students' ability levels, and don't have the necessary energy to lead their students. Such teachers aren't looking out for the best interests of students. Most are managers, not leaders, and they won't support the transformation effort. Poor performers also feed the rumor mill, have an agenda that's not aligned with the school's mission and vision, and aren't open to change. A school leader should waste no time in removing low performers.
Staff meetings must be productive. But initially they should simply serve to reassure everyone that the school will succeed. The leader shouldn't be afraid to discuss and analyze reasons for the school's failure. The leader must highlight plans and/or procedures that aren't being implemented effectively. Student discipline issues present the greatest challenges relative to consistency. Weekly staff meetings and team leader meetings provide a good opportunity to focus on such issues and make sure that everyone understands and supports existing plans. Weekly meetings also enable the leader to celebrate small successes; teachers need to know that they're appreciated. A small gift card or book goes a long way in keeping the staff excited and encouraged about the school's future.
Stage II — Prepare for full recovery
Getting to the rehabilitation stage doesn't mean the school is out of the woods. However, it shows that all stakeholders are focused on the future and working to make the necessary changes. The leader can establish a foundation for success by taking several steps.
In creating a blueprint for the school's future, and unlike Stage I, collaboration among the staff becomes very important. Working closely with the staff keeps the principal grounded in reality and sends a message that everyone is responsible for the school's future. Throughout the year, I identified specific dates and times for reviewing and discussing the strategic plan. We set aside 30 minutes during specified staff meetings to review the school's progress toward individual goals and objectives. We went over a goal, its objectives, and associated action steps, focusing on whether its implementation supported the school's mission and vision. Involving the staff and teachers in this process is the first step in transitioning to a collaborative leadership system — one that will be critical after the bleeding has stopped.
Poor teachers do a disservice to students, and they hurt the morale of an instructional team.
Conclusion
Many will spend a lifetime arguing whether leaders are born or made — this is not the time or place for such a discussion. But this is the right time to argue for selecting the right person to turn around a failing school. The fundamental characteristics needed in the school leader are not much different from those that would be used in turning around a failing business. In essence, a failing school needs a transformational leader who possesses the highest level of integrity, the strongest possible work ethic, superb people skills, excellent communication skills (verbal and written), and a fear of failure.
