Description
Implementation of school turnaround strategies under School Improvement Grant and Race to the Top programs has provided States with a unique opportunity to rethink how to govern effectively and to organize their efforts to improve their lowest achieving schools.
11
Highlights of State Approaches to
School Turnaround Governance
Implementation of school turnaround
strategies under School Improvement
Grant and Race to the Top programs
has provided States with a unique
opportunity to rethink how to
govern efectively and to organize
their eforts to improve their lowest
achieving schools.
1
States have had
to consider such issues as whether
to provide support directly to their
lowest achieving schools or to support
school districts in implementing
intervention strategies at the school
level. In addition, States have had to
consider whether to reorganize State
structures dedicated to supporting
school improvement. The purpose of
this publication is to provide a snapshot
of some of the approaches that Race
to the Top States have taken to address
these issues.
1
Race to the Top States’ plans include supporting their local educational
agencies (LEAs) in turning around the lowest achieving schools by
implementing one of the four school intervention models:
• Turnaround model: Replace the principal and rehire no more than
50 percent of the staf and grant the principal sufcient operational
fexibility (including in stafng, calendars/time and budgeting) to
fully implement a comprehensive approach to substantially improve
student outcomes.
• Restart model: Convert a school or close and reopen it under a
charter school operator, charter management organization or
education management organization that has been selected
through a rigorous review process.
• School closure model: Close a school and enroll the students who
attended that school in other schools in the district that are higher
achieving.
• Transformation model: Implement each of the following strategies:
(1) replace the principal and take steps to increase teacher and
school leader efectiveness; (2) institute comprehensive instructional
reforms; (3) increase learning time and create community-oriented
schools; and (4) provide operational fexibility and sustained support.
Delaware is providing assistance through a separate
State entity designed to coordinate and deliver
support to schools implementing turnaround
models. Delaware has created a Partnership
Zone (PZ), currently composed of the State’s 10
persistently low-achieving schools. The schools
remain a part of their current districts, but receive
support through the PZ to implement school
interventions. Delaware’s School Turnaround Unit
assists PZ schools by providing onsite monitoring,
technical assistance and regular data collection, as
well as access to experts, mentors, partners and best
practices information. The School Turnaround Unit
also monitors district plan implementation to ensure
districts are improving student achievement.
After a school is identified for the PZ, a district
creates strategies to manage the turnaround
process; these may include working with an external
lead partner or building internal capacity. Lead
partners are organizations that are on contract
with the district to provide academic and student
support services to schools and coordinate
turnaround efforts. They can either be independent
organizations or autonomous units created by the
district central office. Once a management structure
is in place, the district selects one of the four
turnaround models to implement in the school. See
http://www.deturnaround.org/.
The District of Columbia’s Office of the State
Superintendent of Education conducts its
intervention efforts primarily through the District
of Columbia Public Schools, which have extensive
experience in implementing the school turnaround
models. In Year 2 through Year 4, it plans to fund
eight turnaround efforts through Race to the Top.
See http://osse.dc.gov/service/turning-around-
lowest-performing-schools.
2
Delaware’s PZ Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)
Districts with a PZ school or charter schools are required to agree to an MOU between the Delaware
Department of Education and the district, and in return receive flexibility and autonomy to institute innovative
reform strategies. The MOUs are required to address the following:
•
•
•
The school turnaround strategy selected for implementation
Oversight of the PZ school by the Department
For schools where a collective bargaining agreement governs its employees, a further agreement with the
collective bargaining unit is required to address any subjects that might afect the implementation of its
model. Those issues include:
?
?
?
?
?
?
Limitations on hiring, reassigning and transferring employees
Rules relating to calendar and instructional time
Professional development and training requirements
Performance
Retention
Employment incentives
If an agreement is not reached within 75 days of a school being designated as part of the PZ, the State
Secretary of Education will make a final decision about the terms of the agreement.
In addition, the MOU can address:
•
•
•
Flexible funding at the school level
Partnerships with outside entities, such as consultants or education management organizations
Extended learning time and mechanisms for family and community engagement
Source: http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/100/103.pdf
Florida’s Bureau of School Improvement implements
the components of Florida’s System of School
Improvement and Differentiated Accountability and
is a team-based, cross-agency delivery system for
State assistance and interventions. To provide direct
assistance to schools, Florida has created a regional
system of support. Throughout the State, 92 staff
members, both content area specialists and turnaround
leaders, are embedded in five regions. The State partners
with districts to provide regional support in schools. The
State has 127 targeted schools, 102 of which are SIG
recipients. See http://flbsi.org/aboutus.htm.
Georgia created the position of Deputy
Superintendent for School Turnaround and moved
approximately 45 school improvement staff from
the Office of School Improvement to the newly
established Office of School Turnaround. This new
office enables the State to coordinate its work under
the School Improvement Grants program, Race to
the Top, and its Elementary and Secondary Education
Act accountability system to assist each of the State’s
persistently low-achieving schools in implementing
its selected intervention model. The State’s efforts to
intervene in persistently low-achieving schools focus
3
on aligning initiatives across programs, developing a
robust assistance and monitoring plan, and providing
summer programs to support staff in those schools.
See http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/School-Turnaround/
Pages/default.aspx.
Hawaii has identified two Zones of School Innovation,
comprising 18 schools. The Zones of School Innovation
support struggling schools in rural or remote, hard-
to-staff areas serving the largest population of native
Hawaiian and economically disadvantaged students in
the State. Hawaii, which operates as a single LEA, takes
a community approach in creating zones based on
existing organizational structures known as complex
areas: if one school is identified as low performing, the
entire feeder pattern is added to the zone. Under the
Zones of School Innovation, reform plans are tailored
for individual schools and rely on research-driven
actions and strategies, attracting and retaining highly
qualified teachers, providing data coaches, developing
community partnerships, and offering comprehensive
support for students’ non-academic needs. Zones of
School Innovation also serve as a means of piloting many
of Hawaii’s reform initiatives in its Race to the Top plan
before rolling them out to other areas in the State. See
http://hawaiidoereform.org/Zones-of-School-Innovation.
Maryland’s Breakthrough Center is the hub at the
State Department of Education through which
school turnaround is coordinated across all divisions.
Maryland is providing support services to 16 low-
achieving schools and 20 feeder schools in two LEAs.
The Race to the Top effort is coordinated at the State
level with similar efforts funded under the School
Improvement Grants program. The center works in
partnership with local school districts, private business,
government agencies and philanthropies to direct
appropriate resources to low-achieving schools in the
State. The center develops partnership agreements
with districts that have SIG schools, serves as the
interface between districts with SIG schools and
service providers, and provides needs analysis and
other tools. It also offers incentives to providers and
recipients of services to work with the center. The
center is staffed by State personnel but has its own
executive director and leadership team.
See http://www.msde.md.gov/MSDE/divisions/
leadership/programs/breakthrough_center.htm.
Maryland has also established a Cross-Functional Team,
which is facilitated by the executive director for the
Breakthrough Center and includes Race to the Top
project managers, staff from across Maryland State
Department of Education divisions, and the Mid-Atlantic
Comprehensive Center. The Cross-Functional Team
meets monthly to coordinate the delivery of all services
to the lowest achieving schools. During meetings,
the Cross-Functional Team identifies which services
have been or need to be provided to the targeted
schools, discusses obstacles the schools are facing, and
generates solutions to overcome those obstacles.
Massachusetts’ school intervention efforts are led
by the Office of District and School Turnaround. This
office coordinates the Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education’s work to build partnerships
with the lowest performing districts and schools to
turn around student performance. The office works
closely with the 10 largest urban school districts to
provide customized support to enhance the districts’
capacity to intervene successfully in their high-need
schools, in addition to all other schools in the district.
The State’s assistance, activities, tools and resources
are designed to complement and strengthen district
capacity to guide and monitor school improvement.
Massachusetts uses its six regional District and School
Assistance Centers to support LEAs and their schools
in accessing professional development and targeted
assistance to improve instruction and, ultimately, raise
student achievement. See http://www.doe.mass.edu/
apa/sss/support/.
New York has aligned its Race to the Top work with
existing school turnaround programs and policies
by creating a new division, the Office of Innovative
Schools, to implement Race to the Top school
turnaround initiatives. This office collaborates with
other offices and external providers to help schools
implement one of four intervention models. The
office also collects and distributes research on best
practices to LEAs, coordinates with other entities to
provide professional development for leaders and
administrators in persistently low-achieving schools
and districts, identifies other partners to work with LEAs
on their reform efforts, conducts technical assistance
and outreach, and collects data on intervention results.
See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/oism/.
4
North Carolina created the District and School
Transformation division to assist districts implementing
turnaround strategies in persistently low-achieving
schools. The State is implementing interventions in
the entire bottom 5 percent of schools in the State.
The District and School Transformation division also
provides targeted assistance to 12 LEAs identified as
Transformation Districts, which are in the lowest 10
percent of LEAs in the State. The division provides
customized support for LEAs that focuses on building
district-level capabilities to provide better assistance to
their schools. The State has significantly expanded its
capacity to assist persistently low-achieving schools and
districts by hiring more than 70 individuals as district
transformation coaches, school transformation coaches,
instructional coaches and instructional review coaches.
See http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/schooltransformation/.
Ohio created the Office of Transforming Schools to
facilitate turnaround efforts throughout the State
and integrate Race to the Top goals with the State’s
previous school reform efforts, including work done
as a part of the SIG program. To support the work
assisting persistently low-achieving schools and its
new office, Ohio created a new public and private
management structure designed to leverage financial
resources, innovation and local-level collaboration.
The Ohio Network for Education Transformation
contract was awarded in 2011 to the Education
Service Center of Central Ohio; its purpose is to
support local reform efforts through the provision
of technical assistance, training, public reports and
developing innovative school models. It has a team
of specialists who provide onsite, targeted assistance
to school-based implementation teams. Through the
2013–2014 school year the specialists are supporting
30 School Improvement Grants recipients and 46
Innovation Grant recipients. Working collaboratively,
the network and the Office of Transforming Schools
have developed work plans for Ohio’s persistently low-
achieving schools and have analyzed early-warning
indicators to identify schools for the second year of
implementing turnaround models in persistently low-
achieving schools. See http://www.ode.state.oh.us/
GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=812
and http://www.onetohio.org/Pages/default.aspx.
The Rhode Island Department of Education’s Office of
Transformation provides guidance, services, support and
direction to leaders and decision-makers within LEAs.
Regulations developed by the Board of Regents guide
LEAs on requirements for fundamental reforms. LEAs
manage their school reform efforts under the leadership
of a school transformation officer who reports directly to
the superintendent or chief academic officer. The school
transformation officer may have additional staff support,
depending on the size of the LEA and the number of
schools identified for reform. RIDE works with each LEA to
determine the structure and staffing needed to provide
sufficient capacity to implement the chosen school
reform model. See http://www.ride.ri.gov/commissioner/
RaceToTheTop/default.aspx.
Tennessee has created a separate school district
structure for its lowest achieving schools. With a
superintendent appointed by the commissioner of
education, Tennessee’s Achievement School District
(ASD) is modeled after the Recovery School District
in Louisiana, which took control of the vast majority
of underperforming schools in New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina.
Tennessee’s ASD Operation
Models
The goal of the ASD is to move the bottom 5
percent of Tennessee schools to the top 25 percent
within fve years. The ASD is employing two diferent
models in the operation of its schools:
•
•
Direct-run: ASD assumes full control of and
accountability for the turnaround of the campus
and is responsible for stafng, academic and
extracurricular programs, day-to-day operations,
and budgets, holding itself fully accountable for
the successful turnaround of school sites.
Charter: ASD authorizes high-quality charter
management organizations to manage and
staf the campus and holds the organization
responsible for the successful turnaround of the
school site by evaluating student achievement
data. ASD has already selected charter
management organizations to launch schools in
ASD attendance areas in Memphis and Nashville.
5
For 2011–2012, the ASD co-managed five persistently
low-achieving schools with the Memphis City
and Nashville (Davidson County) school districts
as it transitioned to full management of all ASD-
eligible schools. Co-management requires joint
decisions on staffing, academics, non-academic
programs, culture and budget. The State also strongly
encouraged co-managed LEAs to give first priority
for staffing to candidates from ASD-contracted
human capital partners. Co-managed schools also
had the opportunity for additional resources from
State-contracted entities such as Battelle for Kids,
and AmeriCorps. Tennessee expects that the ASD will
charter and direct-run approximately 35 schools by its
third year of full operation (2014–2015); this represents
approximately 40 percent of the “priority” (persistently
lowest achieving) schools in Tennessee.
To build on the work of ASD, and as part of its recently
approved Elementary and Secondary Education Act
flexibility waiver, Tennessee is planning to permit
LEAs to establish innovation zones that will have
flexibility similar to that of the State-run ASD and will
allow for greater local innovation when conducting
turnarounds in the lowest achieving schools. See
http://www.achievementschooldistrict.org/.
This publication features information from public and private organizations and links
to additional information created by those organizations. Inclusion of this information
does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any
products or services ofered or views expressed, nor does the Department of
Education control its accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness.
doc_498243584.pdf
Implementation of school turnaround strategies under School Improvement Grant and Race to the Top programs has provided States with a unique opportunity to rethink how to govern effectively and to organize their efforts to improve their lowest achieving schools.
11
Highlights of State Approaches to
School Turnaround Governance
Implementation of school turnaround
strategies under School Improvement
Grant and Race to the Top programs
has provided States with a unique
opportunity to rethink how to
govern efectively and to organize
their eforts to improve their lowest
achieving schools.
1
States have had
to consider such issues as whether
to provide support directly to their
lowest achieving schools or to support
school districts in implementing
intervention strategies at the school
level. In addition, States have had to
consider whether to reorganize State
structures dedicated to supporting
school improvement. The purpose of
this publication is to provide a snapshot
of some of the approaches that Race
to the Top States have taken to address
these issues.
1
Race to the Top States’ plans include supporting their local educational
agencies (LEAs) in turning around the lowest achieving schools by
implementing one of the four school intervention models:
• Turnaround model: Replace the principal and rehire no more than
50 percent of the staf and grant the principal sufcient operational
fexibility (including in stafng, calendars/time and budgeting) to
fully implement a comprehensive approach to substantially improve
student outcomes.
• Restart model: Convert a school or close and reopen it under a
charter school operator, charter management organization or
education management organization that has been selected
through a rigorous review process.
• School closure model: Close a school and enroll the students who
attended that school in other schools in the district that are higher
achieving.
• Transformation model: Implement each of the following strategies:
(1) replace the principal and take steps to increase teacher and
school leader efectiveness; (2) institute comprehensive instructional
reforms; (3) increase learning time and create community-oriented
schools; and (4) provide operational fexibility and sustained support.
Delaware is providing assistance through a separate
State entity designed to coordinate and deliver
support to schools implementing turnaround
models. Delaware has created a Partnership
Zone (PZ), currently composed of the State’s 10
persistently low-achieving schools. The schools
remain a part of their current districts, but receive
support through the PZ to implement school
interventions. Delaware’s School Turnaround Unit
assists PZ schools by providing onsite monitoring,
technical assistance and regular data collection, as
well as access to experts, mentors, partners and best
practices information. The School Turnaround Unit
also monitors district plan implementation to ensure
districts are improving student achievement.
After a school is identified for the PZ, a district
creates strategies to manage the turnaround
process; these may include working with an external
lead partner or building internal capacity. Lead
partners are organizations that are on contract
with the district to provide academic and student
support services to schools and coordinate
turnaround efforts. They can either be independent
organizations or autonomous units created by the
district central office. Once a management structure
is in place, the district selects one of the four
turnaround models to implement in the school. See
http://www.deturnaround.org/.
The District of Columbia’s Office of the State
Superintendent of Education conducts its
intervention efforts primarily through the District
of Columbia Public Schools, which have extensive
experience in implementing the school turnaround
models. In Year 2 through Year 4, it plans to fund
eight turnaround efforts through Race to the Top.
See http://osse.dc.gov/service/turning-around-
lowest-performing-schools.
2
Delaware’s PZ Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)
Districts with a PZ school or charter schools are required to agree to an MOU between the Delaware
Department of Education and the district, and in return receive flexibility and autonomy to institute innovative
reform strategies. The MOUs are required to address the following:
•
•
•
The school turnaround strategy selected for implementation
Oversight of the PZ school by the Department
For schools where a collective bargaining agreement governs its employees, a further agreement with the
collective bargaining unit is required to address any subjects that might afect the implementation of its
model. Those issues include:
?
?
?
?
?
?
Limitations on hiring, reassigning and transferring employees
Rules relating to calendar and instructional time
Professional development and training requirements
Performance
Retention
Employment incentives
If an agreement is not reached within 75 days of a school being designated as part of the PZ, the State
Secretary of Education will make a final decision about the terms of the agreement.
In addition, the MOU can address:
•
•
•
Flexible funding at the school level
Partnerships with outside entities, such as consultants or education management organizations
Extended learning time and mechanisms for family and community engagement
Source: http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/100/103.pdf
Florida’s Bureau of School Improvement implements
the components of Florida’s System of School
Improvement and Differentiated Accountability and
is a team-based, cross-agency delivery system for
State assistance and interventions. To provide direct
assistance to schools, Florida has created a regional
system of support. Throughout the State, 92 staff
members, both content area specialists and turnaround
leaders, are embedded in five regions. The State partners
with districts to provide regional support in schools. The
State has 127 targeted schools, 102 of which are SIG
recipients. See http://flbsi.org/aboutus.htm.
Georgia created the position of Deputy
Superintendent for School Turnaround and moved
approximately 45 school improvement staff from
the Office of School Improvement to the newly
established Office of School Turnaround. This new
office enables the State to coordinate its work under
the School Improvement Grants program, Race to
the Top, and its Elementary and Secondary Education
Act accountability system to assist each of the State’s
persistently low-achieving schools in implementing
its selected intervention model. The State’s efforts to
intervene in persistently low-achieving schools focus
3
on aligning initiatives across programs, developing a
robust assistance and monitoring plan, and providing
summer programs to support staff in those schools.
See http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/School-Turnaround/
Pages/default.aspx.
Hawaii has identified two Zones of School Innovation,
comprising 18 schools. The Zones of School Innovation
support struggling schools in rural or remote, hard-
to-staff areas serving the largest population of native
Hawaiian and economically disadvantaged students in
the State. Hawaii, which operates as a single LEA, takes
a community approach in creating zones based on
existing organizational structures known as complex
areas: if one school is identified as low performing, the
entire feeder pattern is added to the zone. Under the
Zones of School Innovation, reform plans are tailored
for individual schools and rely on research-driven
actions and strategies, attracting and retaining highly
qualified teachers, providing data coaches, developing
community partnerships, and offering comprehensive
support for students’ non-academic needs. Zones of
School Innovation also serve as a means of piloting many
of Hawaii’s reform initiatives in its Race to the Top plan
before rolling them out to other areas in the State. See
http://hawaiidoereform.org/Zones-of-School-Innovation.
Maryland’s Breakthrough Center is the hub at the
State Department of Education through which
school turnaround is coordinated across all divisions.
Maryland is providing support services to 16 low-
achieving schools and 20 feeder schools in two LEAs.
The Race to the Top effort is coordinated at the State
level with similar efforts funded under the School
Improvement Grants program. The center works in
partnership with local school districts, private business,
government agencies and philanthropies to direct
appropriate resources to low-achieving schools in the
State. The center develops partnership agreements
with districts that have SIG schools, serves as the
interface between districts with SIG schools and
service providers, and provides needs analysis and
other tools. It also offers incentives to providers and
recipients of services to work with the center. The
center is staffed by State personnel but has its own
executive director and leadership team.
See http://www.msde.md.gov/MSDE/divisions/
leadership/programs/breakthrough_center.htm.
Maryland has also established a Cross-Functional Team,
which is facilitated by the executive director for the
Breakthrough Center and includes Race to the Top
project managers, staff from across Maryland State
Department of Education divisions, and the Mid-Atlantic
Comprehensive Center. The Cross-Functional Team
meets monthly to coordinate the delivery of all services
to the lowest achieving schools. During meetings,
the Cross-Functional Team identifies which services
have been or need to be provided to the targeted
schools, discusses obstacles the schools are facing, and
generates solutions to overcome those obstacles.
Massachusetts’ school intervention efforts are led
by the Office of District and School Turnaround. This
office coordinates the Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education’s work to build partnerships
with the lowest performing districts and schools to
turn around student performance. The office works
closely with the 10 largest urban school districts to
provide customized support to enhance the districts’
capacity to intervene successfully in their high-need
schools, in addition to all other schools in the district.
The State’s assistance, activities, tools and resources
are designed to complement and strengthen district
capacity to guide and monitor school improvement.
Massachusetts uses its six regional District and School
Assistance Centers to support LEAs and their schools
in accessing professional development and targeted
assistance to improve instruction and, ultimately, raise
student achievement. See http://www.doe.mass.edu/
apa/sss/support/.
New York has aligned its Race to the Top work with
existing school turnaround programs and policies
by creating a new division, the Office of Innovative
Schools, to implement Race to the Top school
turnaround initiatives. This office collaborates with
other offices and external providers to help schools
implement one of four intervention models. The
office also collects and distributes research on best
practices to LEAs, coordinates with other entities to
provide professional development for leaders and
administrators in persistently low-achieving schools
and districts, identifies other partners to work with LEAs
on their reform efforts, conducts technical assistance
and outreach, and collects data on intervention results.
See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/oism/.
4
North Carolina created the District and School
Transformation division to assist districts implementing
turnaround strategies in persistently low-achieving
schools. The State is implementing interventions in
the entire bottom 5 percent of schools in the State.
The District and School Transformation division also
provides targeted assistance to 12 LEAs identified as
Transformation Districts, which are in the lowest 10
percent of LEAs in the State. The division provides
customized support for LEAs that focuses on building
district-level capabilities to provide better assistance to
their schools. The State has significantly expanded its
capacity to assist persistently low-achieving schools and
districts by hiring more than 70 individuals as district
transformation coaches, school transformation coaches,
instructional coaches and instructional review coaches.
See http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/schooltransformation/.
Ohio created the Office of Transforming Schools to
facilitate turnaround efforts throughout the State
and integrate Race to the Top goals with the State’s
previous school reform efforts, including work done
as a part of the SIG program. To support the work
assisting persistently low-achieving schools and its
new office, Ohio created a new public and private
management structure designed to leverage financial
resources, innovation and local-level collaboration.
The Ohio Network for Education Transformation
contract was awarded in 2011 to the Education
Service Center of Central Ohio; its purpose is to
support local reform efforts through the provision
of technical assistance, training, public reports and
developing innovative school models. It has a team
of specialists who provide onsite, targeted assistance
to school-based implementation teams. Through the
2013–2014 school year the specialists are supporting
30 School Improvement Grants recipients and 46
Innovation Grant recipients. Working collaboratively,
the network and the Office of Transforming Schools
have developed work plans for Ohio’s persistently low-
achieving schools and have analyzed early-warning
indicators to identify schools for the second year of
implementing turnaround models in persistently low-
achieving schools. See http://www.ode.state.oh.us/
GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=812
and http://www.onetohio.org/Pages/default.aspx.
The Rhode Island Department of Education’s Office of
Transformation provides guidance, services, support and
direction to leaders and decision-makers within LEAs.
Regulations developed by the Board of Regents guide
LEAs on requirements for fundamental reforms. LEAs
manage their school reform efforts under the leadership
of a school transformation officer who reports directly to
the superintendent or chief academic officer. The school
transformation officer may have additional staff support,
depending on the size of the LEA and the number of
schools identified for reform. RIDE works with each LEA to
determine the structure and staffing needed to provide
sufficient capacity to implement the chosen school
reform model. See http://www.ride.ri.gov/commissioner/
RaceToTheTop/default.aspx.
Tennessee has created a separate school district
structure for its lowest achieving schools. With a
superintendent appointed by the commissioner of
education, Tennessee’s Achievement School District
(ASD) is modeled after the Recovery School District
in Louisiana, which took control of the vast majority
of underperforming schools in New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina.
Tennessee’s ASD Operation
Models
The goal of the ASD is to move the bottom 5
percent of Tennessee schools to the top 25 percent
within fve years. The ASD is employing two diferent
models in the operation of its schools:
•
•
Direct-run: ASD assumes full control of and
accountability for the turnaround of the campus
and is responsible for stafng, academic and
extracurricular programs, day-to-day operations,
and budgets, holding itself fully accountable for
the successful turnaround of school sites.
Charter: ASD authorizes high-quality charter
management organizations to manage and
staf the campus and holds the organization
responsible for the successful turnaround of the
school site by evaluating student achievement
data. ASD has already selected charter
management organizations to launch schools in
ASD attendance areas in Memphis and Nashville.
5
For 2011–2012, the ASD co-managed five persistently
low-achieving schools with the Memphis City
and Nashville (Davidson County) school districts
as it transitioned to full management of all ASD-
eligible schools. Co-management requires joint
decisions on staffing, academics, non-academic
programs, culture and budget. The State also strongly
encouraged co-managed LEAs to give first priority
for staffing to candidates from ASD-contracted
human capital partners. Co-managed schools also
had the opportunity for additional resources from
State-contracted entities such as Battelle for Kids,
and AmeriCorps. Tennessee expects that the ASD will
charter and direct-run approximately 35 schools by its
third year of full operation (2014–2015); this represents
approximately 40 percent of the “priority” (persistently
lowest achieving) schools in Tennessee.
To build on the work of ASD, and as part of its recently
approved Elementary and Secondary Education Act
flexibility waiver, Tennessee is planning to permit
LEAs to establish innovation zones that will have
flexibility similar to that of the State-run ASD and will
allow for greater local innovation when conducting
turnarounds in the lowest achieving schools. See
http://www.achievementschooldistrict.org/.
This publication features information from public and private organizations and links
to additional information created by those organizations. Inclusion of this information
does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any
products or services ofered or views expressed, nor does the Department of
Education control its accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness.
doc_498243584.pdf