Irrational Exuberance for Market-based Reform: How Federal Turnaround Policies Thwart Democratic Schooling

Abstract

Background In 2009, the Obama Administration announced its intention to rapidly “turn around” 5,000 of the nation's lowest-performing schools. To do so, it relied on the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program to provide temporary funding for states and schools, and to mandate drastic, school-level reforms. Most of these reforms require massive administrative and teacher layoffs, especially under the “turnaround option.”In the public debate about the SIG program, reforms such as turnarounds have been described as new and innovative. In reality, the nation has significant experience with them, particularly over the past 40 years. Turnaround-style reforms are not only based on unwarranted claims; they ignore contrary research evidence about the potential of mass firings to improve organizational performance. Purpose This paper considers the tensions with democratic education inherent in the federal SIG program's market-based school reforms. It examines the evolution of and intent behind the 2009 federal SIG program. From there, it considers the lessons of forty years of research on educational effectiveness and high-stakes accountability. It builds on this evidence, as well as the growing literature on communities’ engagement in reform, in its analysis of the school turnaround research and practice. The paper culminates in a set of recommendations that are intended to re-center the purposes of public education for low-income students, students of color, and local communities in developing more equitable, democratic school turnarounds. Research Design This article synthesizes forty years of research on school and district effectiveness, high-stakes accountability, and community engagement in school reform to evaluate the federal School Improvement Grant program's potential to cultivate democratic, equitable public schools. It also reviews the small, but rapidly growing literature on school turnarounds, paying particular attention to the ways in which this new field reproduces or departs from earlier literature that examined reform models that are analogous to the current SIG-funded school turnarounds. Conclusions: Based on the provisional lessons that are emerging from current SIG-inspired turnarounds, from research on earlier efforts to improve school and district effectiveness, and from pockets of promising community-based practices that are developing at local and national levels, we propose five steps that federal, state, and local policymakers can take toward fostering more equitable, democratic turnaround processes. First, increase current federal and state spending for public education, particularly as it is allocated for more democratic turnarounds. Second, focus turnaround policies on improving the quality of teaching and learning rather than on technical-structural changes. Third, engage a broad cross-section of schools’ communities—teachers, students, parents, and community organizations—in planning and implementing turnaround strategies that are tailored to each school and district context. Fourth, incorporate multiple indicators of effectiveness—apart from test scores—that reflect the range of purposes for schools. Fifth, support ongoing, systematic research, evaluation, and dissemination examining all aspects of turnaround processes in schools and districts.

Between old and new unionism: Race, professionalism, and resistance in a district of market reforms

“…Critical policy scholars pose broad concerns about the implications of prominent policies, including limitations to democratic participation on the part of parents and families (Scott & Holme, 2016;Trujillo & Renee, 2015), as well as limitations to educators of color and the historic traditions of teaching that many have sought to enact for critical democracy and educational justice (Anderson & Dixson, 2016). Additionally, the work of critical policy scholars has done much to illuminate the ways that current notions of professionalism, particularly those captured in policy documents, function as a means of instrumentalizing neoliberal ideology.…”

Images of Educational Leadership: How Principals Make Sense of Democracy and Equity in Two Distinct Political Contexts

“…Policy pressures are especially acute in schools that serve high numbers of low-income families and racial or ethnic minorities. In these schools, low test scores can trigger a range of government-imposed sanctions, including laying off teachers and principals, converting the school to a charter school, transferring authority over the school to a private management company, and even closing the school (Trujillo & Renée, 2015). This market-oriented system of education is grounded in principles of competition, consumer choice, and accountability for test-based results.…”

“…Public and private influentials, families, and researchers are increasingly framing education as a 'commodity' to be delivered (Biesta, 2004), an economic exchange between a provider, the teacher, and the consumer, the student. Maximizing one's 'return on investment' has become a central principle for both politicians and parents (Trujillo, 2018). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has gained a prominent position in setting the agenda for educational policy and educational research in general by providing indicators for best practices and by constructing a global policy field of governance by comparison across countries (Bieber & Martens, 2011;Møller, 2017).…”

Disconnected and Pushed Out: Youth Narratives of "Second-Chance" Programs in an Urban Community of Color

“…Adverse effects on the education of disadvantaged students by NCLB, now replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2016, have been well documented (Reyes III & Villareal, 2016). Trujillo and Renee (2015) point out that these accountability measures overly rely on standardized test scores as the primary measure of school success and any consideration of the effects of contextual factors (e.g., poverty, race, and funding disparities) remain invisible.…”