Plan to fix schools falls flat

Wisconsin’s proposed plan to fix its lowest performing schools is as likely to work as a weight-loss diet based on brats and cheese curds.

The flawed strategy was recently outlined in the first draft of a plan that Wisconsin is required to complete as part of its obligations under the new federal education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Under that law, the state must identify and take action to fix schools with ulacademic tra-low achievement, as well as high schools with low graduation rates and any school that routinely produces weak results for particular groups, such as low-income, minority or special education students.

The good news is that ESSA — unlike its heavy-handed predecessor, No Child Left Behind — is intentionally silent on what specific interventions Wisconsin must use for such schools. This flexibility allows for a variety of evidence-based approaches.

The bad news is that the Badger State appears poised to squander this critical opportunity.

Consider its proposed handling of the most persistently failing schools. Wisconsin says it will enlist a “team trained in implementation science” to identify why previous reforms have failed and drive a “school specific, customized improvement plan” that includes “refined or new requirements” and necessary “additional requirements and supports.” The latter may include things such as “family and community engagement,” “professional development” and “expanded improvement efforts.” Those are pretty words but also vague, unimaginative and unlikely to turn around many failing schools.

Wisconsin leaders should go back to the drawing board and embrace three demonstrably impactful strategies: charter school expansion, a state-led “turnaround district” and state-driven but districtbased solutions, such as school receiverships and innovation zones. All of these satisfy ESSA’s requirements and

have succeeded elsewhere.

Wisconsin already recognizes what great charter schools can do for needy kids, having one of the largest charter sectors in the country. It’s also a proven strategy for transforming students’ lives, especially in urban areas, where research has found that charter schools have produced more than a month of additional days of learning for all students and lead to stronger performance for students of color and special education students compared with traditional public schools.

Those in Milwaukee charters, for example, see larger annual learning gains in math and reading than their peers in Milwaukee Public Schools. Communities in Wisconsin with chronically low-performing schools should use federal funds to replicate the state’s existing high-quality charters, as well as create new schools with strong leaders and teachers.

In a turnaround district, the state extricates struggling schools from the systems in which they operate and places them under the responsibility of a new statewide entity. This is especially promising in districts that have clusters of low-performing schools. And its potential is evident in Louisiana’s program, the oldest such model in the country —dating to 2003 — which has produced strongly positive effects, even while accounting for demographic changes as New Orleans recovered from Hurricane Katrina.

Finally, Wisconsin should initiate forceful districtbased solutions. One example is “receiverships” — akin to an “educational bankruptcy” procedure — where the state temporarily shifts authority over individual schools to others in the community who have the knowhow, courage and freedom to change them in fundamental ways. This has led to improved student growth and graduation rates in Massachusetts. Another promising approach is the “innovation zone,” in which districts keep control of low-performing schools but give them more resources and much greater autonomy. Memphis, for example, has found great success with this option.

Wisconsin children stuck in the state’s worst schools deserve a much greater sense of urgency than is visible in the proposed ESSA plan.