Turnaround Schools

Connecticut receives 3 out of 4 available points for transforming failing schools.

In 2016, the Connecticut State Board of Education announced its Next Generation accountability system,¹ which built upon the 2015 ESEA waiver.² According to the waiver and legislation, the state will continue to have oversight over the thirty lowest performing districts, called the Alliance Districts.

The Commissioner’s Network, which grants the Commissioner authority over low-performing schools, continues to be one of the turnaround options for low-performing schools.³ In FY 2016-17, 21 schools are expected to participate in the Network.⁴

Connecticut’s Next Generation Accountability System establishes a new accountability framework that includes student growth over time, absenteeism, career readiness, higher education attendance, physical fitness and civics/art.⁵ The Turnaround Team in the State Department of Education monitors these interventions.⁶ To date, however, there are questions about the degree to which districts have been held accountable for improvement.

The accountability model also explores turnaround strategies for all of the lowest-performing schools, dividing schools by a series of indicators that include student growth over time, absenteeism, career readiness, higher education attendance, physical fitness and civics/art.⁷ In FY 2015-16, the CSDE identified 136 schools in the lowest performing school Categories of 4 and 5⁸. This represents over 9% of the schools in the state⁹. Schools falling into these lowest performing categories will have to “redouble their efforts to dramatically improve student achievement”¹⁰ and pursue a school improvement model that must be approved by the commissioner of education.¹¹

With respect to charters, magnets, and other innovative school models, Connecticut created several barriers in 2016: limiting the development of non-“Sheff” magnet schools until the CSDE completes a comprehensive magnet school plan,¹² reducing FY 2016-17 funding for magnets by $11.9M¹³, and reducing FY 2016-17 funding for charters by $1.9M¹⁴.

(Note: One of the items in this rubric has been amended from its original version to reflect changes to the education landscape.¹⁵)

Connecticut receives 3 out of 4 available points for building a framework to transform failing schools.

Connecticut’s Next Generation Accountability System includes instructional and learning environment benchmarks¹⁶ which have 12 indicators that are assigned point values computed by school into an accountability index score.¹⁷ Student growth and other achievement factors are measured as part of the index score.¹⁸

The state interventions into schools will be determined by school Accountability Index scores and which categories schools are placed based on these scores.¹⁹ The lowest performing 3 categories of schools will get the most state intervention and support from the State Board of Education.²⁰

In FY 2015-16, the CSDE identified 50 Category 5 and 86 Category 4 low-performing schools which will be required to make and implement turnaround plans.²¹

Schools falling into the lowest performing categories will have to “redouble their efforts to dramatically improve student achievement”²² and pursue a school improvement model that must be approved by the commissioner of education.²³

Higher performing schools in categories 1 and 2 will still be expected to improve.²⁴ High performing schools will get CSDE- provided school performance information and data but less actual state support to implement any changes.²⁵ Schools in categories 1, 2, and 3 were not assigned to specific categories in FY 2014-15.²⁶

The state still requires a clear analysis of the additional wraparound services, including social and health services, that are needed to support student achievement.

Connecticut receives 2 out of 5 available points for providing the necessary leadership at the state level to turn around schools.

At the end of 2012, the Connecticut State Board of Education (CSBE) appointed leadership to a reorganized School Turnaround Office, which intervenes in the low-performing districts through the Alliance District program and the Commissioner’s network.²⁷

In order to improve its capacity, the School Turnaround Office should be granted discretion over hiring decisions with the department, as well as the authority to create partnerships to increase capacity, innovation, and financial support.

Additionally, we recommend that the Commissioner conduct a review of the progress of the School Turnaround Office, in order to ensure that funding and turnaround plans are resulting in improved student performance. When turnaround interventions fail, schools and districts should receive useful feedback and face the potential loss of continued funding.

Connecticut receives 2 out of 4 available points for maximizing instructional time.

The Alliance Districts, Commissioner’s Network Schools, and SIG schools receive public funding that can be used for interventions such as extended day programming, if they are components of their turnaround plans.²⁸

But extended time is only useful if students actually attend. Under Connecticut’s Next Generation accountability system each school and district will annually collect and report on chronic absenteeism.²⁹ Points in the accountability system will be awarded based a school or district’s ability to reduce its chronic absenteeism rate to 5% or fewer of its students.³⁰

The Connecticut State Department of Education has provided a number of resources, research, and evidence-based strategies to improve student attendance and reduce chronic absenteeism.³¹ In their FY 2016-17 Alliance District plans, Alliance Districts with high chronic absenteeism rates of more than 10% had to use program funds to address this.³²