The Echo

The State Turnaround Office will be responsible for identifying PLAs and Partnership Zone schools, for providing supports to LEAs, and for monitoring Partnership Zone performance and enforcing accountability. Its staff will include an experienced turnaround leader, an accountability officer, and an identification officer in charge of both quantitative and qualitative identification processes and administration of the CSR. In addition to this full time-staff, the office will secure contracted support as necessary.

LEAs will be responsible for planning for turnaround, securing operational flexibility, hiring school leaders and staff, and operating the schools. LEAs may also choose to transfer responsibility for operations to partner organizations.

• Accountability: Each Partnership Zone school will commit to making AYP within two years of launch. Schools that fail to make AYP after two years will be subject to a new MOU process to develop a new plan and gain appropriate flexibility, or will be required to choose a new turnaround model. When necessary, the State will use the following sanctions: (1) Reduction or removal of the School Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA; (2) Reduction or removal of supplemental Partnership Zone funding through the Turnaround Office; (3) Removal of flexible funding arrangements (see section F) if progress on the formative assessments and other academic indicators do not signal progress towards AYP at the end of two years.

• Monitoring progress: The Turnaround Office will frequently monitor progress and provide supports to ensure that each Partnership Zone school is on track to reach AYP within the two-year timeframe. For each formative and summative DCAS assessment, the State will set intermediate goals and review progress towards these goals within six weeks of the assessment’s execution. In addition, Turnaround Office staff will have a broader quantitative and qualitative understanding of school progress, tracking interim indicators of student success based on the root causes as identified by the CSR (e.g., attendance) and visiting each school, at least monthly in its first semester of operations, and then at least quarterly thereafter. The Turnaround Office will provide periodic reports on its website about the performance of the Partnership Zone schools so that the public is informed of the progress during turnaround...

Historical performance on school turnaround, results, and lessons learned


Over the last five years, the State has attempted to turn around 24 schools, primarily through the “Other major restructuring” option (20 schools), through closure (1), and through leadership change (3). The results have demonstrated that, while six schools have made AYP ina single year, none have exited restructuring or school improvement status through improved student performance. Eight schools have avoided further restructuring by changing their Title I status.

The current Administration has learned the following from this history:
• “Other major restructuring” provides insufficient guidance and requires too few changes to effect significant reforms
• Difficulty in securing carve outs from collective bargaining agreements to implement changes required by the charter, outside management, and staff replacement models caused most LEAs to choose “Other major restructuring”
• Changes in leaders must be accompanied by greater flexibility and autonomy specifically relating to staffing, spending, and changes to the school day in order to take advantage of leadership skills
• The State needs to provide greater support in planning to create rigorous, credible plans, provide better oversight of implementation of these plans, and hold schools accountable for following through...

The State is committed to distributing School Improvement Grants only to schools that have credible plans for improvement. In addition, the State tracks progress towards each school’s goals, and will, as necessary, reduce or remove funding for schools that fail to demonstrate progress towards goals.

I just want to know --
1) Prior to RttT, Did Delaware routinely commit to distribute SI Grants to schools to didn't have credible plans for improvement?  Ummm...Yes. -- Only six schools have made AYP in a single year, none have exited restructuring or school improvement status. Eight schools have avoided further restructuring by changing their Title I status.

2) Does Delaware blame unions for the failure of our schools?  Ummm...Yes. -- Difficulty in securing carve outs from collective bargaining agreements to implement changes and staff replacement models caused most LEAs to choose “Other major restructuring,” (Remember that Other Major Restructuring resulted in the failed plans in Question 1.)

3) Will the state let LEAs whose schools fail to make AYP during the Race to Top Grant period exit the program?  When DOE reps addressed our district, we were told that we could leave the program and would only be required to pay back what was not spent of the RttT Grant...  Then, how come the application reads as such:

Note:  School Improvement Grants existed before and outside of Race to the Top.

When necessary, the State will use the following sanctions: (1) Reduction or removal of the School Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA; (2) Reduction or removal of supplemental Partnership Zone funding through the Turnaround Office; (3) Removal of flexible funding arrangements (see section F) if progress on the formative assessments and other academic indicators do not signal progress towards AYP at the end of two years.

Good God, would it have been so difficult to permit School Boards to read the application before we had to vote on our agreement to the MOU?  That's all I really want to know.