Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround

Abstract

Purpose-Despite the popularity of school "turnaround" and "portfolio district" management as solutions to low performance, there has been limited research on these strategies. The purpose of this paper is to address this gap by exploring the strategic case of Los Angeles Unified School District's Public School Choice Initiative (PSCI) which combined both of these reforms. It examines how core mechanisms of change played out in schools and communities during the first two years of implementation. Design/methodology/approach-The paper draws on a mixed methods study, combining data from surveys, case studies, leader interviews, observations, and document review. It is guided by a conceptual framework grounded in research on school turnaround and portfolio districts, along with the district's implicit theory of change. Findings-The paper finds early success in attracting diverse stakeholder participation, supporting plan development, and ensuring transparency. However, data also indicate difficulty establishing understanding and buy-in, engaging parents and community, attracting sufficient supply of applicants, maintaining neutrality and the perception of fairness, and avoiding unintended consequences of competition-all of which weakened key mechanisms of change. Research limitations/implications-Data from parent focus groups and school sites may not be representative of the entire population of parents and schools, and data come from a short period of time. Practical implications-The paper finds that developing processes and procedures to support complex reform takes time and identifies roadblocks others may face when implementing school turnaround and portfolio management. The research suggests districts invest in ways to ensure neutrality and create a level playing field. It also indicates that leaders should anticipate challenges to engaging parents and community members, such as language and literacy barriers, and invest in the development of unbiased, high-quality information and opportunities that include sufficient time and support to ensure understanding. Originality/value-This paper begins to fill a gap in research on popular reform strategies for improving low-performing schools.

The Process and Politics of Educational Governance Change in New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Denver

“…PMMs and their individual elements are becoming widely used reform strategies, and there is a growing body of work examining the development of PMMs in specific cases (Bulkley, Christman, & Gold, 2010;Fruchter & McAlister, 2008;Gyurko & Henig, 2010;Levin et al, 2010;Marsh et al, 2013;Menefee-Libey, 2010;Welsh & Hall, 2018;Yatsko, 2012). 2 This limited research suggests some emerging patterns around internal and external pressures associated with PMM-style shifts (Bulkley & Henig, 2015).…”

“…Second, PMMs have varied in scope, ranging from structural change across a whole system to more narrow strategies in which some schools enact some mechanisms (i.e., choice and autonomy) while other schools maintain a more top-down, neighborhood school structure (Hashim et al, 2018;Levin et al, 2010;Marsh et al, 2013). Third, PMMs have varied in terms of who is operating schools, including reliance on governmental versus nongovernment school operators and local versus more national providers (e.g., EMOs managing schools in multiple states such as the Knowledge is Power Program (Bulkley & Henig, 2015).…”

“…However, in 2009, LAUSD district leaders spearheaded reforms that appeared to signal a renewed strategy to be more competitive with charter schools by bringing a greater variety of school choices within the LAUSD portfolio. Under a district turnaround reform, the Public School Choice Initiative (PSCI), leaders allowed internal and external teams to apply to operate the lowest performing schools and a set of newly constructed schools under a variety of governance models (see, Marsh et al, 2013;Strunk et al, 2016, for details on this reform). In the first 2 years of this initiative, charter school operators/nonprofits were eligible to apply (and were Marsh et al not obligated to adhere to the district's collective bargaining agreement) and a diverse set of schools emerged: Of the 70 schools involved, 14 were charter, 20 were pilots, 14 were other semiautonomous models, and 22 were traditional.…”

“…Trends in the number and types of schools over time mirror the emergence of competing systems in Los Angeles (Figure 4). Gradual changes occurred around 2001 when the state charter law revisions took effect and early internal reforms came to an end, resulting in a steady increase in charter schools and other school types operating under varying levels of autonomy (Marsh et al, 2013;Strunk et al, 2014). By 2016, there were 232 charter schools representing 23% of the more than 1,000 public schools in Los Angeles, with an additional 175 within-district semiautonomous schools (17%).…”

Put Your Big Girl Knickers on! The Experiences of Two Female Leaders in New Zealand Primary Schools Turning Schools Around

“…Fullan (2016), Futernick and Urbanski (2014), Le Floch et al (2016), and Scott (2008) state a number of programs and processes implemented to address high-need schools, are generic and predetermined by educational authorities and those charged to bring about positive change. However, given that schools are complex organizations located in diverse communities, I would advocate these predetermined programs are not always the best way to achieve positive, sustainable outcomes (Nicolaidou and Ainscow, 2002;Marsh et al, 2013;Meyers and Smylie, 2017). Individualized programs, developed with the support of the school's stakeholders and community are vital for the longerterm sustainability and stability of the school.…”