Mercenaries and an Immature Market: The Fate of School Turnarounds

In a speech delivered at the National Charter School Conference last summer Secretary Duncan pledged 5 (now 3.5) billion dollars to support the turnaround of the lowest 5 percent of schools. “We need everyone who cares about public education,” he stated, “to take on the toughest assignment of all—and get in the business of turning around our lowest-performing schools.” It is not surprising that Duncan chose school turnarounds as a focal point in his national education plan. Over 5,000 schools nationwide, according to a study by Mass Insight Education, were designated to enter some form of restructuring by 2009-2010. School improvement programs, which support more incremental methods of change, simply have not worked in the nation’s most underperforming schools.

Duncan’s call to action, however, fell on a vastly underdeveloped market place. According to New Schools Venture Fund, at the time of Duncan's speech, there were less than ten organizations engaged in turnaround work and there were no organizations operating at any scale. Duncan’s plan called for 100-200 turnaround schools to open by this fall. Clearly there is a significant gap between the industry’s supply and the government’s demand.

Duncan hopes that existing Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) and individual charter schools with track records of success will step in to fill this gap. He is offering access to facilities and pushing state legislatures to lift their caps on charters. Turning around a school, however, is a very different challenge than doing a start-up, the approach that charter schools have traditionally taken. It is unclear whether most CMOs are equipped or willing to take on this challenge. In addition, there lacks a body of research or knowledge on best practices for school turnarounds, making turnaround endeavors all the more uncertain. To date, with the exception of Green Dot, the leading CMOs have not stepped up to the plate.

While the turnaround market is risky, it does present an opportunity for growth and innovation within both the non-profit and for-profit education sectors. This opportunity is driven by:
• There are over 2,500,000 students in the lowest performing schools. More gradual methods of school reform have not worked. Turnaround strategies could work, and could thereby change the life opportunity of 2.5m students.
• There is a large market. 3.5b is not insignificant.
• There is little competition.

Non-profits and for-profit organizations have the resources and leeway to transform what education looks like for low-income children in the United States. This is a tremendous opportunity if the market matures quickly enough to seize it. The New York Times article, “Inexperienced Companies Chase U.S. School Funds,” written his week by Sam Dillion suggests however that that market has not made that maturation in time. Instead we are seeing unqualified and ill-equipped companies clamoring to position themselves in the windfall of the 3.5 billion dollars.

This frightens me. I taught in a school that would qualify as one of those 5,000 schools in need of a turnaround. Ensuring that my students succeeded in that environment took every piece of heart, mind-share, and effort that I had. Getting that success at a school level takes not just heart and effort, but also real experience, leadership and talent. The federal government is giving us a once in a lifetime opportunity to really change these schools. Let’s not let it be squandered by mercenaries or the fear of wading into these uncertain waters.