How to Order.vp

292

K-12 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES

A Case Study in Accountability, District Monitoring,

and School Improvement

Gini Doolittle and Evelyn Gallagher Browne

INTRODUCTION

As the multiple criticisms regarding the No Child Left Behind Legislation (NCLB)
continue, a consistent pattern testifying to significant learning gains across schools, especially
high-poverty schools, has yet to emerge (Fullan, Hill, & Crèvola, 2006). Although
improvement has been reported in a few schools across the country, including several in high-
poverty districts, a recent study by Mass Insight Education and Research Institute (2008)
predicted that “by the end of the decade, at current rates, about five percent of all U.S. public
schools will be identified as chronic failures in need of what NCLB calls ‘restructuring’” (p.
2). The researchers also reported that 1,100 of the nation’s 100,000 schools are presently
labeled under the most severe NCLB category, restructuring. Second, an additional 12,000
schools have been designated in need of improvement (SINI) with one quarter of the nation’s
total number of schools unable to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Orfield and Lee
(2005) added that of the 35% low socio-economic status students who attend public schools,
two-thirds represent minorities.
Despite ongoing efforts aimed at improving student achievement, most interventions focus
on technical solutions rather than confront the underlying poverty compromising student
learning (Calkins, Guenther, Belfiore, & Lash, 2007). Unfortunately, school failure generates
a cycle of intense scrutiny kicking off a seemingly endless cycle of academic failure,
monitoring, sanctions, and corrective action plans that resembles the movie, Groundhog Day
(Ramis, 1993).
In New Jersey, for example, the ongoing failure of 13 districts to meet AYP benchmarks
resulted in their designation as Districts in Need of Improvement (DINI).Under the NCLB
regulations, districts that do not meet AYP during successive years may find themselves in
corrective action (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). The federal government requires
such districts to undergo comprehensive monitoring resulting in a corrective action plan. In
addition, two other low-achieving districts were added to the pilot.
In this chapter, we present a case study of one high-poverty DINI district and then
examine how the data compare to the other DINI districts. As a result, we were able to
identify four key areas for future action that might help other high-poverty school districts
meet AYP expectations and improve student achievement by implementing turnaround
strategies. Turnaround strategies incorporate community, district, and state efforts (Fullan,
2006) to improve schools.

Gini Doolittle, Rowan University
Evelyn Gallagher Browne, Rowan University