The School Closure option does not appear to be feasible. Closing a school mid-year and reopening it may be much more difficult than the other options.

Although the criteria seem to be demanding, this may well be what it takes to improve student achievement in some schools.

Has anyone considered the size of schools and the research regarding smaller professional learning communities? Why do funds always go to the "failing" schools? The school that have made progress end up having to cut programs due to reduced funds, yet we keep throwing money as ineffective programs, with little or no success.

I do not believe the Dept of Education's solution for addressing the achievement level of low performing schools will creat the positive results they seek.
Apparently there is an assumption that the low achievement is solely a result of poor leadership at the building level combined with poor instruction. That is far from true. We have students actually living in cars, The poverty is extreme. Many parents work two or more low paying jobs to feed and house their families.
Almost 25% of the incoming freshmen arrive at my high school each year with math and reading skills in the first quartile. It is not uncommon to have students who have been in six or seven schools by the time they reach high school. Many have not been in schools consistently.
Much of the problem is due to factors well beyond the control of schools.
Fred Anderson

How can any Educational orginization that states that student are first,exclude the front line leadership.The Principals are on the front line every day.A true leader in education understand this.

There are many comments that I could make against this proposed legislation. However, here is just a brief re-cap of why this won't work. (1) teacher shortages conflicts with replacing 50% of staff; (2) principal shortages conflicts with replacing the principal (3) closing schools conflicts with the fact that MOST districts are facing overcrowding with no where to place their children now, let alone closing schools (4) closing schools and puting them in high achieving schools within the district, for many districts in our state using the current AYP formula, all schools are in the same boat so there isn't a school to place them in. None of these solutions look at the inherent problem which is that we don't track students within the cohort group but compare cohorts and we don't celebrate growth of students no matter how small that growth might be. There are outstanding teachers and principals working deligently to help students regardless of the their AYP scores. It takes a village and until we can also hold students and parents accountable for learning - it will always be an uphill battle. I would suggest that you re-think your plan.

The proposals for remediation under the School Improvement Grants are not based on any current research and, in fact, are directly contradictory to sound education thinking and practice. My comments are based on forty years service as an educator including serving as president of the RI Assn. of School Principals, president of the Mass. Assn. of School Business Officials, trustee of the New England Assn. of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), and chair of the NEASC Commission on Technical and Career Institutions.
Let me preface these remarks by saying our educational systems need improvement – they always have and always will. There are, without question, schools that need partial or total replacements of staff. However, the proposals put forth lack a basis for determining which schools require such remediation and which schools are failing for reasons other than staff.
Although the issue of student outcomes is exceedingly complex, let me address three issues relative to the SIG proposal.
Any map highlighting low performing schools will be highly correlated to a map highlighting poverty areas. This is not coincidental. This country has been negligent in supporting children born into poverty. All of the industrialized nations with student outcomes superior to ours also provide far more support for children. Interestingly enough, many of these countries spend less on education which more than offsets expenditures on child health, nutrition and other supports. These same countries also address the handicapping condition of being raised in a poverty environment through pre-school, all day kindergarten, and other programs. There are more than enough data suggesting students In poverty arrive at the school house door with half of the learning of their better off peers – that’s fifty percent of the learning gap. There is additional research (note the Stanford study in Baltimore) that suggests all students learn approximately the same from September through June. Twenty five percent of the learning gap between poor and more well to do students at grade 5 is learning gained by the better off students during the summer. An extrapolation would suggest most, if not all, of the remaining 25% of the gap arises between the closing of school for the day or week and its reopening. Schools are educating poor children. But poor children are not enjoying the educational benefits enjoyed by students not in poverty.
For the most part, and there are exceptions, exchanging a staff from a low performing inner city school with the staff from a neighboring suburban community will have little impact on student outcomes. As noted above, it is not the teachers or administrators holding back students. Teachers in inner city districts must not only try to overcome the issues surrounding students living in poverty but they often must do so in antiquated buildings and without adequate resources. They are also much more likely than their suburban counterparts to encounter violence – another outcome of living and working in high poverty areas.
The third point has to do with charter schools. Charter schools are a solution coming from politicians and bureaucrats – not educators. A few successes are touted as being the harbinger of a national education reform. There are no data indicating charter schools do any better on average than public schools notwithstanding the advantages they are afforded in hopes of making them successful. If independent schools with non-union teachers were the antidote to our education woes, our nation’s parochial schools, operating for well over 100 years, would have long ago put our public school system to shame. They didn’t. According to the research, student for student, their outcomes are not significantly better than public schools. Charter schools harken back to our nineteenth century schools – prior to state systems of education. Charter schools do not provide a system. With all of the talk of a national curriculum, not necessarily a good idea, charter schools are a move in the opposite direction. Those who blame teacher unions for less than stellar student outcomes point to charter schools as the answer. Charter schools will only be non-union up to the point where there are sufficient numbers to make organizing charter school faculties economically feasible and until some faculties feel mistreated. And the fatal flaw in charter schools? A charter school system cannot be brought to scale because it is not, as noted, a system. It is a hodgepodge of unrelated schools not likely to want to fall under any organizing authority and thus lose their independence.
Charter schools do one thing well. Whereas they are generally required to have lotteries and are not allowed to “cherry pick” students, the process allows them one huge advantage. The lotteries are entered into by students whose parents are concerned about the students’ educations. Charter schools attract parents who care. Parents not as interested, too busy, too uninformed, drug or alcohol involved, etc. are not as likely to look to alternative schools. As any educator will tell you, parents play a key role in student outcomes. The public schools will always have responsibility for the poor students who rely totally on the schools because they have no home support system.
We need our federal dollars to do two things. Improve our system of public schools. Address the needs of our poorest students so they are able to escape the bonds of poverty that make their lives and their schooling so difficult.

Schools should not be held completely accountable for students not making academic achievements until the rest of society problems are perfect. Removing administration and staff at hard working schools is not the answer nor is forming charter schools. If you think about it, government changes staff every four years and it certainly has not solved problems.

SIG's are intended for improvement of the lowest performing schools. Since these schools, many of them urban, may exist in systems that lacked the district leadership to make appropriate but difficult personnel decisions, the fact that a principal must be removed under the Turnaround Model may preclude district leaders from applying for funds to implement this model. A strong, visionary principal is critical to turning around a school at the bottom. If such a leader has not been in place, I would hope the grant process would involve some examination of "why not?" These schools are in districts that also should be held accountable, along with superintendents for the personnel decisions they make or fail to make.
Under the Restart Model is it assumed that implementation of charter management will automatically produce quality leadership and instruction? There is now a body of research to the contrary.

Dear Arne Duncan:
This is my 35th year in education. I taught language arts for 21 years and have been an administrator for the past 14. I work with middle school kids and their teachers. I love what I do.
I have been reading about the school improvement grants. I agree with Gerald Tirozzi about the different reform models--firing the principal, replacing staff, and charter school--as being radical change. I want my school to be eligible for funds to improve also--without getting fired to do it.
What disturbs me the most about what I've read regarding education is the emphasis on private and charter schools. In the West, we believe in public education as the best education for all students.
I have been following the guidance of the DuFours with Whatever It Takes and Mike Schmoker's Results Now. My school excels in reading and writing scores. We're puzzled in math and have just begun the work in science. We're researching, working in collaborative teams, training with experts, and putting our hearts and souls into our work.
Consider us as you begin your work with NCLB and the SIG models. We need hope, support, and time to be innovative and successful with all children. We need our public schools to be strong.
Elaine Cockrell
Huntington Middle School
Kelso, WA

I don't even know what to say. To require that the principal an half the staff be replaced in order to recieve funds is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You are going to have good educators fired sobthat districts can cash in. Wow.

Stop and think. Think. Think.

What is the matter with you people? When was the last time you visited one of these low achieving schools? Granted there are principals and teachers who need to be replaced, but to make it a requirement for a grant as a general requirement is a flock shot of the highest order, and as irresponsible as it can be. Why would you assume that the school's lack of success is due to those two factors alone? If you really want to effect change, then create teams of investigators made up of practitioners (teacher, administrators and parents) from outside the school, who can make assessments and recommendations for improvement, then be committed to provide the funds necessary for that improvement to occur. The last thing we need is more beauracrats sitting on their behinds in Washington deciding what is wrong with America's schools. Most of our problems are the result of government interference to begin with. Remember Affirmative Action? Requiring hiring of minority and underrepresented personnel reqardless of qualification? How about pressure to increase graduation rates, literacy, etc. etc. without providing funding and professional development to support such mandates. So here we go again, supporting the elitist mentality that has always been there in spite of the historical fact that the thing that makes our country great is the education for all. Charter schools are not the answer. Neither is wholesale firing of teachers and principals. Unless of course you are willing to take their place and do their job for the salaries they are being paid. Care to "step up?"

As and educator of 30 years and principal, covering all levels K-12, and currently as a high school principal of 10 years I would like to share that the avaialability of data and the ability to analyze the data is key to school reform. School learders who use data to make educational decisons find school improvement efforts to be successful, as data eliminates all opinions and beleifs. Data is what it is, we as educators need to deal with it. Further, if the data is used in a manner to improve the school's and teachers' instructional program, rather than to beat people up with, the school will make improvements in the students' acheivement, thus the overall achievement of the school. However, what is lacking at the secondary level, and especially the high school level, is ongoing assessments teachers can utilize to monitor instuction and adjust instruction as needed based on the results of these ongoing assessments. Money would be well spend by states to develop ongoing assessements at the high school level to provide high school teachers with tools and resources to make data driven decisions througout the year instead of looking at the end-of-the-year data and making an improvement plan and hoping throughout the next year that it works, while waiting to get the next year's results at the end-of-the-year to see if it did or not. These 3 year grants should provide these ongoing assessments geared to 9th and 10th grade level courses in all core areas, and also require their use to make data driven decisions impacting instruction throughout the year. It does need to be a 3 year grant, as reseach shows that it takes a minimum of 3 years to establish the improvment efforts if you are going to psotively impact the culture of the the school's instructional program and change it for the better. I for one would want to be awarded such a grant for my school!!! We are struggling along right now tryijng to do these things with very,very limited resources in this area.

I think that the models are a great start to try to assist our lowest performing schools. I also believe that schools need more help getting the teachers to do what needs to be done. They run to their contract and the union right away. I would like stronger legislation against under-performing teachers to get them to either improve or face possible termination.If your first priority is not the students then you need to go.

The premise of removing the principal and 50% of the staff is not only a drastic measure but one filled with disastrous implications.

First, in the existing setting of the school districts, the principal has to answer to many entities. He must work with the Board of Education, the Superintendent, and the Assistant Superintendents, directors, and union officials, as well as his own staff. Will the new proposal include these individuals and groups for accountability. Will everyone be subject to removal?

Second, many of the initiatives that would help improve a school need funding and new staff. If the principal cannot receive the necessary resources, then he/she will be unable to facilitate the necessary changes. Though it is understood that the purpose of the grant is to send the funding to the schools, what is the paperwork to receive it? Will it involve having an already overworked principal to oversee the grants implementation? Will the process be cumbersome and overwhelming?

Third, principals have to abide by the contractual agreement and tenure laws that exist in his/her district. Therefore, the parameters of these contracts and working conditions may also inhibit the principal in fully caring out the initiatives.

These grants are exceptional opportunities for the schools to gain the necessary resources needed to succeed. However, the structure of the american school system itself places obstacles for the resources to be fully utilized or effective. To hold the principals and teachers wholly responsible sends the message that they alone are responsible for the success in the schools. There are other components and members who are equally involved and should share in the success and/or criticism of the school. Are they being held to the same level of accountability?

Hank Hardy
Port Washington School District

I'd like to preface my comments by noting I'm an assistant principal in an affluent, suburban high school in Roanoke, VA. At first glance, it appears drastic overhauls are being proposed to solve some of education's most pressing concerns. I agree, drastic measures might be called for in some instances, but I'm not sure what I have read is feasible or wise. Replacing the principal and 50% of the staff reads well, but in practice would be utter chaos. Most likely, these schools have difficulty recruiting and finding teachers and administrators who are highly qualified, but more importantly, of high quality. Our school and school division have difficulty with finding good people, too. I would suggest solutions that solve the problems not just move the problems...
*educators need better training to acquire, analyze, and synthesize data (this starts in education programs - teacher and administrator).
*little time, during the school day, is focused on instruction, especially in low-performing schools. Principals need to have time (not possible) or hire an additional principal whose sole responsiblity is instruction (learning, student achievement, etc.)
*administrators and educators need substantive professional development that allows them to "work smarter, not harder." I am conducting professional development, during time already allotted, that will improve the way we test and instruct our students, but it does not put unnecessary burdens on our teachers who are overwhelmed already.

**The last comment, which is 'tongue-in-cheek,' I will submit is...if we are getting rid of the principal and potentially, 50% of the teachers, then why don't we get rid of 50% of the students and parents. I will GUARENTEE the scores will go up quite a bit. I'd be willing to negotiate the number to 25%!

I have worked in this type of school for the last four years as an Assistant Principal and there too many factors which are often out of the principal
s hands. Charter school conversion is not the answer; what is often needed is community outreach programs to alliviate student's hardships.

The only proposed model that I can support is the transformation model. I do not believe some of the other models are an effective strategy for improving public schools. I would also like to state that the turnaround model would not be possible in most school districts that have only one or two middle or high schools. Where are you going to send 50% of the high school teachers if you only have one high school or one middle school. Some of these proposed fixes are aimed at the really big districts with 50,000 or more students. I am in a rural district with 19,000 students in California with a large English Learner and immigrant population. Transformation is the only logical methodology that would work for us. We have two high performing elementary schools that are all maxed out in enrollment so we cannot send any students to those schools without displacing students that live in that attendance area. Parents would kill us if we did that or made elementary schools go over 1000 students.
Ricardo Medina

While I do believe there is need for refrom in our least performing schools, I can not support the model proposed. Removing principals and giving schools over to charter school agencies is not the way to go. An evaluation of the programs at the school level is where to start. What is working what is not needs to be evaluated and those changes need to be made. If there is an ineffective principal then he or she should be moved. Schools fail for lots of reaosns. They are often the micrcocosim of failed communities. That's not an excuse its the fact. Education needs to have the support of the community and with dwindling funds in both education and community relief now is not the time to make the two be at odds.

I am a dedicated educator and do my best to teach each individual student, if they want to learn or not. My problems are with those that do not want to learn. They will not put forth any effort, as educators we are to be held accountable for our student's achievement, at what point are those that put forth no effort held accountable? It is different if a student is struggling and is willing to put forth effort, the challenge lies with students that put forth not effort and do not value education and in turn destroy the school's graduation rate, ect. because they will not put forth any effort in their education.

I live in Indiana our State Superintendent just took away all our half days which we used for professional development. How can we keep improving as educators when we are not allotted any time to do this?

I believe the students who are at risk are ones who start school behind, have terribly skilled parents, and/or are ones who don't fit the typical high school model. I don't agree with your above mentioned interventions and feel the money should be devoted to daycare centers that teach the infants/toddlers, address their medical, dental, and therapy (physical, occupational, speech, and mental) needs along with mandatory parenting classes as part of child acceptance and retention. I also believe high schools need more funding for alternative schools offered through BOCES that better fit our students who will one day be productive laborers and are not the college bound students.

Reconstitution of staff in any school improvement effort presents more problems that it solves. Instead of punitive efforts designed to scare people into change, I believe more positive effects can be gained by first bringing forward effective models of instruction that provide teachers and administrators with time to analyze data and implement change in real time, increase student engagement by lesson and unit design that bring students to analysis and synthesis levels of thought quickly, and develop essential long-term relationships between students and teachers.
Finding materials that are meticulously aligned with required subject content combined with regular formative assessments teachers can use to adjust/target instruction on a weekly basis should be another priority. With materials like these, teachers can move forward with confidence. Once the foundations of effective models of instruction, training in how to analyze and use data, aligned classroom materials, and increased rigor through purposeful lesson designed that quickly brings students to analysis/synthesis levels of thought, staffs have no choice but to "fish or cut bait." Funding for these fundamental school needs has been so deficient over the past 20 years, I think the proposed solution of reconstituting staff will do little other than present new personnel with old problems.

As CEO of the Educational Research Service I am called to present information to school administrator organizations around the nation. I am deeply concerned about the American Recovery and Investment Act, Title I School Improvement Grants. Let me address each of the forced solutions offered in grant:
1. Turnarounds--the job of principal has expanded exponentially in the last two decades. What was once a job for one now requires at least two for effective implementation. Instead of the negative approach of requiring the replacement of the principal and 50% of the staff, why not force the focus to improving instruction and the school climate. Just moving people around does no good. This model should include providing at least one administrator who totally focuses on instruction and school climate. In addition, require time for teachers to plan together in small teams, and require that a teacher from those teams visits each student's home at least once each semester.
2. Re-starts--OK, but some states don't even allow charters
3. Closures--OK, but how does moving problems to other schools help?
4. Transformations--Replacing the leadership does not make the job more likely to be performed successfully. Why not require that one administrator be solely focused on improving teaching and learning with NO responsibility for discipline, transportation, facilities, etc. Require a teacher evaluation system that includes student achievement as a part of the annual review. Require that the transforming school be given flexibility in regard to state and board regulations--and that the evaluation system for the Principal include school-wide data on discipline, student achievement, school climate, parent satisfaction, and teacher morale.

When your car is broken or out of gas, changing the driver won't help.

Dr. John Draper

As a principal in a Title I school, it is an on-going process to keep a school in great standing considering the double standards provided by the State and the Federal Guidelines for Academic performance. Also, students who have disabilities are being ignored to think that they can perform at the same standards as those who do not have a disability. The Principal should not be replaced. The principal should receive as much assistance as we give teachers who are not getting the academic achievement to the standard that is required. There should be some requirements of parents of the schools/guardians that is connected with their government checks for spending so many hours of community service within the school where their child attends.

While my first inclination is to shout "you lie!!" at Secretary Duncan's nonsense-based quote telling us “If we are to put an end to stubborn cycles of poverty and social failure, and put our country on track for long-term economic prosperity, we must address the needs of children who have long been ignored and marginalized in chronically low-achieving schools,” I will resist doing so for the time being. Putting the failures of our society, culture, and economic structure on the backs of schools and ecucators is akin to blaming dentists for children having cavities, blaming doctors for birth defects, and police departments for the hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by juveniles in our nation each year. Duncan and his cast of educational elites just don't get it.
What's truly sad and very scary for our children in all of this is the "guniea pig" nature of this public educator whitewash and witchhunt. Do parents really approve of your rolling the dice with their children's education, with no certainty of how well a new set of educators will perform?
Case in point: The ED wants to lavish $500,000 onto low performing schools who dispose of their principal and at least 50 percent of their staff. Because.............?
This is a solution? This is a proven, research-based practice which will undoubtedly correct the deficiency so heralded by secretary Duncan? Just "throw the bums" out is the grand answer? I want to see the data that will support this. Parents should have a right to see it too. Otherwise, why would we do it? There needs to be a guarantee that the new principal and his or her 50 new staff members are going to improve upon what those dismissed (for.......whatever the reason.......?) had or had not been able to do. Which likely had so much more to do with pre-existing home, cultural and economic circustances than any failure by school leaders and staff.
Change for the sake of change is mindless and irresponsible. Change to bring about a proven solution to a problem is a responsible and certainly sensible thing to do.
Good luck Mr. Secretary. I do not want to call you a liar, but please give me a reason not to!

It seems to me that the federal govenment is placing the blame of low socio-economic status on the schools. This is not the first time that public education shoulders the blame for society's ills and that the government totally misses cause and effect. Lack of Public Health Care is linked to the same issues, but the feds don't call for replacement of doctors and closing hospitals.

These models are too radical, don't guarantee change and violate the process any school should take when looking for how to improve. There needs to be more focus on looking at data beyond test scores, comparison models and building on the success while looking for similar school demographics that have found success. These models are short-sighted and carry with them and lack of respect for the work currently done in schools.

To condemn a system without data of the whole situation and to restructure districts with random percentages seems irrational and irresponsible at best. Schools are being asked, with little or no funding support, to develop best practices in teaching and use data driven decisions for student improvement. Do the research and find out how effect schools are that do not have consistent continuity at the building administrative level. And which 50% of staff will be chosen and on what criteria. This one size fits all philosophy will only create a larger gap between different demographics. How about we replace politicians that refuse to address the real problem. The government not providing all the funding promised to schools, and politicians refusing to address the funding formulas that no longer work. Creating Charter Schools that will appear to be a quick fix for a complex property tax problem. Politicians need to get into the classrooms and small communities not just the metro districts and see the issues being faced. What is being done about the drug issues and the poor parenting in our society. Rather than have a race to the top why not have a united we stand and grow movement. Good teachers are at the center of student success why not take the money being put out for these grants and have extensive training made available to get all teachers on a higher yet level playing field. The new teachers are coming out of school well prepared, but there is no way to prepare them for the real issues they will face in the classroom and there are many good experience teachers that need more tools to work with. It is ironic that programs like RtI and Best Practices are helping schools teach students that have different abilities. We look at poverty issues and brain based learning for students, but we expect that all teachers are born with all the tools to make a difference. We need to develop the people that make a difference in the classroom and we need to develop parent programs to make sure students are coming to school ready and able to learn.

The recommendations in the given article to address Tier I, II and III schools is overly drastic. A number of factors need to be considered before restructuring a school, replacing staff, and utilizing the charter school system. I would like to suggest funding mandates that have come down from the federal and state levels before pointing fingers at instructional leaders and teachers. Besides funding specific mandates like class size, remediation,physical health, and other costly programs, it is imperative families take on some of the issues plagueing public education. Schools can only do so much with limited time and resources. Charter schools fair no better, in fact, the accountability and success of Charter Schools is far less that the majority of public schools.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

There are many questions and not many reasonable answers coming these days from the U.S. Department of Education regarding School Improvement Grants. As a way of pointing out the inane solutions being proposed to the problems facing schools today, we at the Vermont Principals’ Association invite you to play a round of “Education Jeopardy.”

Answer: The Turnaround Model, The Restart Model, The School Closure Model

Question: What are three simplistic approaches to the complicated question of how to help schools improve, that all involve replacing the school principal, the key person that research says who can actually make a difference?
*****************************************
Vermont is a rural state that serves 95,272 students with 8,728 teachers, 4376 para-educators, and 6,041 other staff. We are 4th best in the nation for high school graduation rate; 4th best in reading, 6th best in math and we have been cited by the College Board as having the best Advanced Placement gains in the nation. Vermont ranks 5th in current expenditure per pupil ($13,629) and yet 24th in per capita income, indicating that Vermonters are willing to pay for a good education for their children.

Yet, despite these positive results, we still would be subject to the same ”one size that fits all” approach that the U.S. Department is selling to us, in order to qualify for School Improvement funding.

There is another model from the U.S. Department of Education called the “Transformative Model” that is more in line with the transformation that Vermont has already begun which addresses reform strategies. In our view, this model offers the best chance of real improvement with an emphasis on data-driven decision making, and has some flexibility for achieving effectiveness.
*****************************************

We write to you on behalf of The Vermont Principals’ Association and our 500+ members who are serving the children, staff and communities. Research shows that replacement of the school's principal and/or staff doesn't give the results that the U.S. Department is suggesting. In a state such as Vermont it is important for school principals to know the culture of the community and it is equally as important to give the staff the professional development that is needed for a strong knowledge base in each of the content areas. Collectively, school principals know the parents and community and can work with them to instill strong academic beliefs and values when it comes to educating its young people.

Vermont is not Chicago. We find it very disturbing that the U.S. Department of Education is using the mindset and model of the Chicago schools as a guide to school improvement in rural Vermont.

Over 60% of our schools in Vermont are now identified as “needing improvement,” as indicated by their New England Common Assessment scores and the lack of performance of some sub-groups. We are moving ahead to work with these schools and to employ strategies that seem promising.

We look forward to a reauthorization of ESEA; we look forward to common-sense school-improvement practices. We look forward to improving scores and opportunities for Vermont’s students. We look forward to helping our staff to all “own” this school improvement effort. But, most of all, we look forward to a responsive U.S. Department who won’t play “games” with us, won’t jeopardize our students’ education, and who won’t have simplistic solutions to our complicated problems such as “replacing the principal…” as an early step in the improvement process. Clearly, our schools, and indeed our students, deserve a better, and a more educationally-sound approach to the problems we all face.
Thank you for giving us a chance to express our thoughts on this important topic.

Sincerely,

The Vermont Principals’ Association

This action for closing low achieving schools is damaging to the community. Most decision makers that think this is the answer have not worked at schools in poor communities nor has been a teacher or a principal in that environment. This action in Chicago is called turn around. Scores are not the end all answer. Many students come into our high school on a 4th and 5th grade level and in some cases 15 and 16 year olds can not read. If a 9th grader comes in on a 5th grade level and moves up two years you have made gaines. Most often the policy makers don't look at where the students started and that the students in most of these school are not selected. The schools must admit all students without an academic criteria, and regardless of poor behavior. The students have come from jail, many need specialized instruction, lack motivation and are truant. These low achieving schools should not be compared to schools that use selective enrollment. High achieving schools and Charter schools will not admit students with low academic achievement. Parnetal involvement is very limited often leading to dissapointment and anger for the students. Gangs in the community appear to have priority because many students fear their safety when traveling to and from school at certain time of the day. Ineffective teachers are difficult to fire due to process and Union agreement. Therefore, schools in this category should be assured of having the best teachers,an instructional leader, additional Social Emotional Learning resources and a variety of academic reinforcement.

I realize that many of our public schools are in crisis. However, I do not think the options listed above to reform school are necessarily the right options. Removing a principal is a very critical step to take, but if the data has not been analyzed it is wrong to assume that this is the best action to take. In addition, Charter Schools are not the answer to public schools. Charter Schools have not been held to the same standard as public schools but are promoted as the way to go. This will be the demise of public education in America. If existing Charter Schools were held to the same accountability standards as public schools, many likely would have similar results. Changing the parameters of NCLB to an improvement model instead of a failure model would be helpful.