AYP Restructuring Looms in Northwest Title I Schools

What's Inside:

• The Challenge: Designing Restructuring That Works
• Overview of Restructuring Options
• School Restructuring in the Northwest
• Key Questions When Considering Restructuring
• Resources
• End Notes
• Credits
• Download PDF of this report [8pp. 99KB]

When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), a set of sanctions of increasing severity was imposed on Title I schools that do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Schools that fail to make AYP for two, three and four years in a row are required to develop improvement plans, offer school choice and make available supplemental educational services.

Sanctions become significantly more stringent when schools fail to make AYP for five consecutive years. In this event, a school is required to continue offering all options from previous years plus take corrective actions that include replacing staff and curriculum, employing an external expert, providing extended learning time, and changing the organizational structure.

The most acute consequence of falling short of AYP for five consecutive years is that the school's district must prepare a restructuring plan that includes one or more of the following:

• Reopen as a charter school
• Reconstitute (replace all or most of the staff)
• Contract with a management company
• Turn over operation of the school to the state
• Restructure school governance in other ways consistent with NCLB

If the school does not attain AYP during this fifth year, the district must implement the restructuring plan no later than the beginning of the next school year. To exit restructuring, the school must make AYP for two consecutive years.

The process for developing a restructuring plan must be open and collaborative. Districts are required to provide parents and teachers prompt notice that their school has been identified for restructuring and allow them to comment before the district takes action. Additionally, parents and teachers must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the development of the restructuring plan.

The language of NCLB allows for variation in the way a state must enforce the restructuring requirement. While restructuring must take place in the sixth consecutive year, it only needs to include one of the restructuring options. Additionally, the provision "…any other restructuring of school governance consistent with NCLB" leaves the door open in terms of other types of restructuring. For example, a state could reconstitute a school into smaller autonomous learning communities.

This situation has caused consternation among teachers, legislators, policymakers, and school administrators because of the uncertainty regarding how to proceed.

The Challenge: Designing Restructuring That Works

Certainly restructuring plans must be implemented. But there are myriad associated problems, including what to incorporate in the plan and how to implement it. The role of the state in restructuring plans also runs the gamut from states that do not approve restructuring plans (California) to states that withhold funding until plans are approved by the state education agency (Michigan). Furthermore, there are controversies surrounding some of the restructuring requirements of NCLB, in part because there is not a sufficient body of evidence to ensure that any particular restructuring option will successfully raise student achievement.

The initial challenge is how to design a restructuring plan. A presumption about a school that consistently does not make AYP is that there is consensus regarding what is to be done to improve student achievement. There is a growing body of educational practices based on scientific research that would appear to be appropriate nostrums for schools in need of improvement. Indeed, some less well-known clauses of the NCLB legislation allocate funds to promote the discovery of new interventions derived from scientifically based education research. However, it would not be fair to claim that this scientific evidence is of sufficient breadth to address the needs of all schools to be restructured. Matching the specific needs of a school with the restructuring options required under NCLB remains problematic.

A related challenge is that many state accountability systems have not been implemented in a planned, sequential manner. A few states have experience with charter schools, private education management organizations (EMOs), and state takeovers. However, most states' accountability systems have been rushed into place as a result of the mandates of NCLB. Because the majority of states have little long-term experience with school accountability, state education agencies (SEAs) face some uncertainty with regard to implementing school restructuring.

Some of the issues that confront state education agencies are internal and involve organizational structure, capacity, and planning. Among important issues to consider are:

• Developing an effective oversight system—a piecemeal approach has little chance of success
• Streamlining the state monitoring process
• Reconfiguring the agency, where necessary, for service delivery
• Emphasizing professional development for SEA teams overseeing the NCLB system
• Balancing state and local responsibilities
• Determining how SEAs identify districts and schools with the greatest need
• Determining and developing partnerships to help (e.g., intermediate education agencies).¹

A few states have some experience with accountability systems that included a restructuring component. A review of the efforts of those states that used one or more of the restructuring options reveals the following:

• States vary in their level of involvement in the restructuring process.
• Most schools have chosen mild or moderate restructuring options.
• Districts that have tried stronger interventions have found themselves in the midst of difficult political battles. Schools and districts have used the power of restructuring to replace some staff members who would have been difficult to replace without NCLB sanctions.
• Alignment between NCLB and formerly enacted state accountability systems has proved difficult.
• Timelines are not always conducive to the school improvement process.
• The U.S. Department of Education has given very little guidance on how restructuring should be implemented.²

Overview of Restructuring Options

Charter schools, reconstitution, education management organizations, and state takeover as methods for restructuring schools have been the subject of much media attention during the recent past. Each has its supporters and detractors, which typically involve teacher unions, organizations representing school administrators, school boards and parents, school reform advocates and think tanks, among others. It is not surprising that evidence for and against each option is vigorously debated.

Charter Schools

The first restructuring option is to reopen the school as a charter school. Charter schools are created by state law, are typically operated by teachers, parents and/or community members, are relatively free of rules and regulations imposed on public schools and are often based on innovative education methods and models. Forty states have charter school laws.³

Advantages of charter schools are the following:

• Low-performing students need more time on task and charter schools offer the opportunity to require more instructional time by having a longer school year and extended study time (e.g., after school, summer institutes).
• Charter schools can escape many of the burdensome layers of state, district, and local regulations, including contracts with teacher unions.
• A community may operate a charter school, thus promoting a more civic approach to schooling. The school is removed from the "educational institution," so to speak.
• Practices not found or rarely used in public schools can be used or tried out to ascertain their effectiveness.⁴

Reconstitution

In a school to be restructured, the district may release all teachers and administrators and hire new ones. Typically, educators who have been dismissed at a reconstituted school can reapply for their old job, but the district retains the option of not hiring those believed to have contributed to low student performance. The assumption is that replacing the teachers and principal who contributed to low student achievement will allow hiring of more competent and highly motivated teachers.

Some of the challenges in reconstitution have to do with staffing. One involves the possibility that if a district simply moves teachers and principals from a school in reconstitution to another school, this may be imposing poor performing educators on other students. Another is the issue of the availability of replacement personnel who are "highly qualified." This can be especially problematic in rural schools. Also, there is the possibility that the school environment may change. For example, staff morale could decline and in some cases communities have reacted against school reconstitution. Additionally, a district considering reconstituting a school must have sufficient funds to pay for new staff. Finally, union contracts can complicate school reconstitution.

What happens when AYP is not met

Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4
Year 1	Year 2	Year 1 School Improvement	Year 2 School Improvement
AYP not met	AYP not met	-Notify parents -Offer school choice -Provide transportation assistance -Revise and implement School Improvement Plan (SIP) -Provide professional development	-Notify parents -Offer school choice -Provide transportation assistance -Offer Supplemental Educational Services (SES) -Revise and implement School Improvement Plan (SIP) -Provide professional development

Year 5	Year 6	Year 7
Year 3 School Improvement Corrective Action	Year 4 School Improvement Plan Restructure	Year 5 School Improvement Restructuring Status
In addition to the school improvement steps, the district must take at least one of the following corrective actions: -Replace some school staff -Institute new curricula -Decrease management authority of school -Appoint outside expert -Extend school day/year -Restructure school	Prepare a restructuring plan to implement at least one of the following: -Replace all or most of school staff -Contract with an outside entity to operate the school as a public school -Re-open the school as a public charter school -Restructure the school's governance -Turn over to state	Implement the restructuring plan

Education Management Organizations

A relatively new method of dealing with schools with chronic low achievement is to hire a private education management organization (EMO). EMOs offer themselves as alternatives to public management of schools. Under this arrangement, EMOs contract directly with a school district or a state education agency to manage failing schools. This management includes hiring and firing staff, supervision of operations, and provision of professional development and curriculum decisions.

The premise of EMOs is that bringing market forces to bear on education will produce better student achievement due to private sector efficiency in the operation of schools. EMO advocates see public schools as part of a failing government monopoly, hampered by bureaucracy with minimal accountability and a reluctance to innovate. Advocates of public education see EMOs as less interested in student welfare than profit and consider them a threat to public education, a cornerstone of American democracy. Currently there are about 200 public schools under private management.⁵

State Takeovers

State takeovers are a relatively new approach to dealing with failing schools, becoming prominent in the mid 1990s. Not all states have the authority to take over failing schools and districts, and some have statutes that prevent it. State takeovers are often controversial but in some cases appear to be the only remedy with any prospect of making significant change. The biggest challenge is that many states lack the capacity to properly diagnose the root problems in failing schools and provide the "scientifically based" technical assistance required by NCLB. However, a state take over can be a prelude to the involvement of an EMO, a private foundation, or a university because of the opportunity to bypass the turmoil often associated with the politics of local school boards in low performing districts. While evidence for improvements in student achievement as a result of state takeovers is equivocal, state takeovers are particularly effective in cleaning up districts plagued by nepotism, cronyism, chronic mismanagement, and financial improprieties.

Number of Northwest Region Title I Schools in Corrective Action and Restructuring, School Year 2005-06

STATE	AYP Level 4 School Improvement Step 3 Corrective Action Begins	AYP Level 5 School Improvement Step 4 Initial Planning for Restructuring	AYP Level 6 School Improvement Step 5, Year 1 Restructuring	AYP Level 7 School Improvement Step 5, Year 2 Restructuring
Alaska	34	6	8	0
Idaho	0	0	0	0
Montana	1	0	7	26
Oregon	0	1	0	0
Washington	6	8	0	0
Regional Total	41	15	15	26

School Restructuring in the Northwest

In the Northwest, state policies allow for a range of restructuring options. Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon have charter schools, while Montana and Washington have no state statutes that allow charter schools. All Northwest states allow districts to reconstitute school staff or hire an EMO. The state education agencies in Alaska and Idaho have the authority to take over governance of a school; Oregon, Montana, and Washington do not.

There is variation in the numbers of schools in restructuring in Northwest states. Some already have schools in restructuring because AYP determinations were made on data collected under the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. Montana is one such state and already has schools in the second year of restructuring. Other Northwest states have no schools in restructuring, primarily because they developed new accountability systems or completely revamped existing systems with the advent of NCLB, as is the case with Idaho.

Alaska

Alaska currently has eight schools in restructure status and six in restructure planning. The state has adopted a regulation that authorizes a district to employ all of the restructuring sanctions required by NCLB. Alaska also requires districts to submit restructuring plans for approval to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. However, the department is allowing districts some latitude in how the plans are constructed and is attempting to establish a collaborative working relationship with districts.⁶

Idaho

Idaho does not have any schools in restructuring or planning for restructuring. Idaho "reset" its AYP timeline with the advent of NCLB. Idaho is one of two Northwest states that does not have charter schools. Idaho permits reconstitution, contracting with an educational management organization, and the state can take over a school in restructuring.⁷

Montana

Montana has seven districts in restructuring, no districts in planning restructuring, and 26 schools in year 2 of restructuring. Montana does not allow charter schools. The Montana Office of Public Instruction cannot take over a school; that authority is vested in local boards of trustees. Districts can reconstitute schools or contract with an education management organization. Districts are not required to submit restructuring plans to the state for approval. The current plan for dealing with schools in restructuring is for the Office of Public Instruction to make support teams available to them.⁸

Oregon

In Oregon, the 2005-2006 school year is the first in which any school has failed to make AYP for five consecutive years. No schools are in restructuring and one is in restructure planning. The restructuring option of choice in Oregon at this point is breaking schools into smaller learning communities. Three schools in the planning year for restructuring decided to break into smaller learning communities before reaching the fifth year of not attaining AYP. Of the three, one restructured by splitting into four new institutions; the second split into three institutions; and the third into two institutions.⁹

Washington

Washington currently has no schools in restructuring and eight in restructure planning. Charter schools are not permitted in Washington although school districts may reconstitute schools or contract with education management organizations. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction cannot take over schools; its authority is limited to school districts. Washington has the largest number of schools in planning for restructuring of all Northwest states. According to a state administrator, one difficulty has been the uniform standard requirement of NCLB when "schools started at different places in terms of the percentages of students meeting state academic standards. It penalizes schools that start well below the uniform goal, and provides no incentive for schools that start above the goal to improve. A better approach would be a growth model that takes these differences into account and accords credit for relative improvements."¹⁰

Key Questions When Considering Restructuring

Restructuring requires careful thinking followed by considered actions. Communication is essential and a broad base of school, district, and community representatives should be involved in planning for restructuring. The following are key questions a district should ask when considering the various restructuring options:

Reopen as a charter school

• Does the state have charter school legislation?
• Is there a proven track record with charter schools?
• Is there time to meet the application requirements and timelines?
• Is appropriate staff available to monitor and support the application process?
• Is there a statewide commitment to providing long-term support?

Replace all or most staff

• Is there a collective bargaining agreement that speaks to this process?
• Is the district large enough to absorb the current staff?
• Has the current staff received intense and sustained professional development relevant to increasing student achievement for all students in the school?
• Will the new staff bring different skills and expectations or will they bring the same skill set as the previous staff?
• Will the new staff be assigned or will they apply?
• What will happen to the "new" staff if, after one year of restructuring, the expected progress is not made?
• What is the next step after replacing all the staff?
• What if the school has already been reconstituted?
• What are the parents and students saying?
• What if the long-term, "well-loved," community-based staff has failed to raise student achievement over the years? Would removing them cause the community to sabotage any new efforts, or is the community ready and eager for a new start?

Enter into a contract with an education management organization

• Is there a management company with a positive track record with schools of similar demographics?
• Is there a long-term commitment for success?
• Has the management company had success in your state or others?
• How will you know if what they have done in other settings will be successful in yours?
• What are the accountability measures in place?
• What are the advantages of a management company over the other options?
• Is the community in favor of a private company managing their school?
• What type of governance model will be used and are parents involved?
• Is there a request-for-proposals process in place to select a management company?

Turn over operation of the school to the state

• Does the state have the finances and staff to operate the school?
• Does the state constitution allow for a takeover?
• How exactly does the state define "turn over operation?"
• Does this mean that the state dictates how the operating budget is spent?
• Does it mean that the state sends one of their employees to be the administrator?
• What involvement has the state had in the school and/or district operations up to this point? Would this be a natural transition?
• What role has the state played in school improvement up to this point?

Any other restructuring of school governance consistent with NCLB

• How does the state define "restructuring" in this context?
• How does the state define "school governance" and "consistent with NCLB?"
• Would using a Comprehensive School Reform model be acceptable?
• How much progress, from an innovation installed as a result of corrective action, does the school need to make in order to be considered "on the right track?" Can that be considered the restructuring efforts? If not, what else may be needed?
• What role does the district have in the restructuring?

Resources

Information on Restructuring Policies and Experiences in States outside the Northwest Region

Education Commission of the States (ECS) Policy Briefs

State Involvement in School Restructuring Under No Child Left Behind in the 2004-05 School Year

by Rebecca Wolf DiBiase, September 2005

www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/64/28/6428.pdf

Closing Low-performing Schools and Reopening Them as Charter Schools: The Role of the State

by Todd M. Ziebarth, September 2004

www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/54/25/5425.pdf

State Takeovers and Reconstitutions (updated March 2004)

www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/51/67/5167.htm

School Restructuring in Philadelphia: Management Lessons from 2002 to 2005

by Lauren Morando Rhim, September 2005

www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/64/01/6401.pdf

Restructuring Schools in Baltimore: An Analysis of State and District Efforts

by Lauren Morando Rhim, August 2004

www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/53/25/5325.pdf

Center on Education Policy

Makeovers, Facelifts, or Reconstructive Surgery: An Early Look at NCLB School Restructuring in Michigan

by Caitlin Scott, November 2004

www.ctredpol.org/fededprograms/Michigan_Nov2004.pdf

Southern California Comprehensive Assistance Center

Look Before You Leap: Responding Effectively to PI [Program Improvement] Year 4 Requirements, A Guide for Selecting Alternative Forms of Governance and Restructuring for PI Year 4 Schools

by Dennis Fox, July 2005

www.bayregionssc.org/docs/look_ before_you_leap.pdf

Official Regulations from the U.S. Education Department

Final Title I Regulations (see especially Sections 200.42 and 200.43 on Corrective Action and Restructuring)

www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.html

Other Resources Related to School and District Improvement

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Center for School and District Improvement

www.nwrel.org/scpd/

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO): Interventions for School and District Improvement

www.ccsso.org/federal_programs/NCLB/4177.cfm

The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement

www.csrclearinghouse.org/

End Notes

1. Taylor, Susan, Council of Chief State School Officers. Personal communication. ^continue reading^
2. DiBase, Rebecca. (2005, September) State involvement in school restructuring under No Child Left Behind in the 2004-2005 school year. Education Commission of the States Policy Brief. Retrieved October 31, 2005 from www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/64/28/6428.pdf ^continue reading^
3. The Center for Education Reform. Washington, DC. Retrieved October 31, 2005 from www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=stateStatChart&psetionid=15&cSectionID=44 ^continue reading^
4. Education Commission of the States. Closing low-performing schools and reopening them as charter schools: the role of the state. Retrieved October 25, 2005 from www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/54/25/5425.pdf ^continue reading^
5. Chubb, John. (2001, spring). The private can be public. Education Next. Retrieved October 24, 2005 from www.educationnext.org/2001sp/6chubb.html ^continue reading^
6. Gamble, Harry, Information Officer, Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. Personal communication. ^continue reading^
7. Ziebarth, Todd. (2004, December) State policies for school restructuring. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved October 26, 2005 from www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/57/02/5702.pdf ^continue reading^
8. Granbery, B.J., Title I Improvement. Montana Office of Public Instruction. Personal communication. ^continue reading^
9. Maguire, Helen, Director, Support to Districts. Oregon Department of Education. Personal communication. ^continue reading^
10. Pauley, Gayle, Title I/LAP and Title V. Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Personal communication. ^continue reading^

Credits

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-275-9500, Fax: 503-275-0458
E-mail: info@nwrel.org

NWREL's Web site address is www.nwrel.org

Planning and Service Coordination
Director: Dr. Steven R. Nelson
Writers: Dr. Richard Smiley, Nanci Schneider, Richard Greenough
Editor: Karen Blaha
Design and Production: Paula Surmann

Comments or queries may be directed to Dr. Steven R. Nelson at nelsons@nwrel.org. To order products call 503-275-0755 or 800-547-6339 ext. 755.

This publication has been funded at least in part with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED-01-CO-0013. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government.

• Home
• About
• Ask NWREL
• Products
• Services
• Calendar
• Search NWREL

©2008 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 SW Main St., Suite 500

Portland, Oregon 97204-3213

1-800-547-6339

503-275-9500

• Contact Us
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy