Responsibility for Failing Schools: Central Falls Reform

Introduction: Race to the Top in Central Falls

Central Falls, Rhode Island came under the Obama Administration's "Race to the Top" policy in January 2010, when the district adopted a new plan to improve its chronically low student performance. After months of debate, teacher firings and rehiring, lawsuits, and negotiations, the policy was finally implemented. Questions remain about how effectively the new policy will resolve the district's deep-seated problems.

Turnaround Models and Stakeholders

The Obama Administration's "Race to the Top" policy requires districts to implement one of four turnaround models (Rochefort, 2011). The transformational model replaces the principal, strengthens school staff, implements research-based instruction with new governance and flexibility, and extends learning time. The turnaround model replaces the principal, rehires only 50% of staff, implements research-based instruction, introduces new governance, and extends learning time. The restart model converts or closes the school and reopens it under an effective charter operator or an educational management organization. Finally, the school closure model closes the school entirely and sends students to other, higher-performing schools.

The stakeholders under this policy are students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and education officials. Students receive the education. Parents provide inputs where individual concerns affect the learning of each student, and teachers stand at the forefront of the educational delivery system. School administrators control the governance of the educational process, while education officials are responsible for implementing effective policies to govern those processes.

The factors in this case include poor test results in math, reading, science, and writing; low graduation rates; and the vulnerability of students, some of whom need English as a Second Language (ESL) services and special education support. The school had severely low academic performance: 33.5% of students dropped out, 47% graduated, 12.5% were held back, and 7% received a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). Standardized test scores showed only 55% proficiency in reading and 7% proficiency in math (Rochefort, 2011). The vulnerability of students stemmed largely from poverty, accompanied by high teenage pregnancy rates, urban decay, unemployment, political corruption, and youth violence. With the area being home to immigrant groups—predominantly Hispanic—many students required ESL and special education services.

References

Alfeld, C. (2012). Mature programs of study: A structure for the transition to college and career? International Journal of Education Reform, 21(2), 119–137.

Butterfield, L. (2013). Letter: Have cries for educational reform been heard? The Statesman Journal.

Rajala, J. (2003). Regulations for improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. Education Reform.

Rochefort, D. (2011). Holding teachers responsible for fixing failing schools: The battle over education reform in Central Falls, Rhode Island. Washington.

Stipanovic, N. L. (2012). Situating programs of study within current and historical career and technical education reform efforts. International Journal of Education Reform, 21(2), 80–97.